search for: last_valuetyp

...s like machinevaluetype.h, valuetypes.cpp etc. i have checked it many times but still getting the following error when build in debug mode. llvm-tblgen: /utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:57: llvm::EEVT::TypeSet::TypeSet(MVT::SimpleValueType, llvm::TreePattern &): Assertion `(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE || VT == MVT::iPTR || VT == MVT::iPTRAny || VT == MVT::Any) && "Not a concrete type!"' failed. What could be the reason?? please guide how to define new types in llvm backend. Thank You -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <ht...

...tc. i have checked it many times but still getting the following error >> when build in debug mode. >> >> llvm-tblgen: /utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:57: >> llvm::EEVT::TypeSet::TypeSet(MVT::SimpleValueType, llvm::TreePattern &): >> Assertion `(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE || VT == MVT::iPTR || VT == >> MVT::iPTRAny || VT == MVT::Any) && "Not a concrete type!"' failed. >> > > Are you sure that you updated all of the enum values correctly, including > updating MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE, etc., and also updated > utils/TableGen/C...

I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); What does the assertion mean ? thanks for all help!! shrey On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at

...the assertion > >  assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && >           ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && >           "Table isn't big enough!"); > > What does the assertion mean ? That means you forgot to bump up LAST_VALUETYPE. -Eli

...ll getting the following error >>>> when build in debug mode. >>>> >>>> llvm-tblgen: /utils/TableGen/CodeGenDAGPatterns.cpp:57: >>>> llvm::EEVT::TypeSet::TypeSet(MVT::SimpleValueType, llvm::TreePattern >>>> &): Assertion `(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE || VT == MVT::iPTR || VT == >>>> MVT::iPTRAny || VT == MVT::Any) && "Not a concrete type!"' failed. >>>> >>> >>> Are you sure that you updated all of the enum values correctly, >>> including updating MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE, etc....

Thanks Eli ...I actually did that ..bumped it up by 2 that I had added. Any thing else that I might have done wrong ? I can see a different assert where it clearly depends on LAST_VALUETYPE assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE thanks shrey On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I tried adding them in my backend how...

...he following: > Change the definition of CondCodeAction to: > uint64_t CondCodeActions[ISD::SETCC_INVALID][2]; > > setCondCodeAction then becomes: > void setCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, MVT VT, > LegalizeAction Action) { > assert(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && > (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && > "Table isn't big enough!"); > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= > ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); > CondCodeActions[(unsign...

...ETCC_INVALID]; What I suggest is the following: Change the definition of CondCodeAction to: uint64_t CondCodeActions[ISD::SETCC_INVALID][2]; setCondCodeAction then becomes: void setCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, MVT VT, LegalizeAction Action) { assert(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimpleTy &g...

I'm trying to understand why this assertion is here. LegalizeAction getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { assert((unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && (unsigned)VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy < sizeof(CondCodeActions[0])*4 && "Table isn't big enough!"); LegalizeAction Action = (LegalizeAction)

...definition of CondCodeAction to: > > uint64_t CondCodeActions[ISD::SETCC_INVALID][2]; > > > > setCondCodeAction then becomes: > > void setCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, MVT VT, > > LegalizeAction Action) { > > assert(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && > > (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && > > "Table isn't big enough!"); > > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= > > ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); > &gt...

...th-1) and 0xFE is MVT::iAny from MVT::SimpleValueType - NVT value is 3 : OK because 3 = MVT::i16 from MVT::SimpleValueType What I don't really understand is the meaning of that first test in the assert : 'NVT > VT'. As in that case VT is always >= MVT::iAny and NVT is <= MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE, the test is always false. So did I miss something obvious, does that simply mean that the PromoteOp method doesn't deal yet with arbitrary size integers or is there a problem in the assert condition? Sorry for the maybe naive question and thanks for any information on the subject. Best reg...