search for: nvptxtargetlowering

Hi Dmitry, > So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one > should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); > and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. > > But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect > such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we > can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know > how to do that, though. Is it possible? di...

Thanks, for insight, Eli, So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know how to do that, though. Is it possible? Anyway, if this is a defec...

On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 2:11 PM, Dmitry N. Mikushin <maemarcus at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi again, > > Kind people on #llvm helped me to utilize bugpoint to reduce the > previously submitted test case. For record, it code be done with the > following command: > > $ bugpoint -llc-safe test.ll > > The resulting IR is attached, and it is crashing in the same way. Is >

...class. Ciao, Duncan. > > 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: >> Hi Dmitry, >>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >>> >>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect >>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we >>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know >>> how...

...you declare i1 to be an illegal type? No. How? 2012/6/30 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > Hi Dmitry, >> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >> >> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect >> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we >> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know >> how to do that, though....

...e.fr>: > >>> > >>> Hi Dmitry, > >>>> > >>>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one > >>>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); > >>>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. > >>>> > >>>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect > >>>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we > >>>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i...

...ncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: >>> >>> Hi Dmitry, >>>> >>>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >>>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >>>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >>>> >>>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect >>>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we >>>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know...

...<mailto:baldrick at free.fr>>: >>> >>> Hi Dmitry, >>>> >>>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >>>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >>>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >>>> >>>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect >>>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we >>>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I don't know...

...at free.fr>: >>>> >>>> Hi Dmitry, >>>>> >>>>> So instead of setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Expand); one >>>>> should probably do setOperationAction(ISD::STORE, MVT::i1, Custom); >>>>> and implement it in NVPTXTargetLowering::LowerOperation. >>>>> >>>>> But this issue makes a good point about the code efficiency: I suspect >>>>> such expansion will be very ugly in terms of performance. Probably we >>>>> can do much better if bool would use i32 instead of i1. I...