search for: newelt

...VC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Vec)) > + if (Constant *IC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Idx)) > + return ConstantExpr::getExtractElement(VC, IC); > + return LLVMBuilder::CreateExtractElement(Vec, Idx, Name); > + } > + > + Value *CreateInsertElement(Value *Vec, Value *NewElt, Value *Idx, > + const char *Name = "") { > + if (Constant *VC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Vec)) > + if (Constant *NC = dyn_cast<Constant>(NewElt)) > + if (Constant *IC = dyn_cast<Constant>(Idx)) > +...

Devang Patel wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> I got the current version of LLVM via svn yesterday and modified my >> code to >> use the LLVMFoldingBuilder. Very nice! >> >> My question is this: I noticed that the folding builder doesn't fold >> some >> operations, e.g. casts. Is there some reason why? If

...if (Constant *RC = dyn_cast<Constant>(RHS)) > + return ConstantExpr::getMul(LC, RC); > + return Insert(BinaryOperator::createMul(LHS, RHS, Name)); > + } Please consistently indent by 2, not 4. > > + > + Value *CreateInsertElement(Value *Vec, Value *NewElt, Value *Idx, > + const char *Name = "") { Very picky, but 'const char *Name' should line up with 'Value *Vec'. > Index: gcc/llvm-convert.cpp > =================================================================== > --- gc...

Dominic Hamon wrote: > Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, >>> I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old >>> non-folding functionality for debugging purposes. >>> >> >> this plan

Duncan Sands wrote: >> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and >> rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd >> argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding >> functionality for debugging purposes. >> > > this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how