search for: promoteintegerresult

Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me about whether m...

Hi, I have a problem that dbg_value nodes are not transferred when integer DAG nodes are promoted. For example, an i32 add node is promoted to a i64 add node by DAGTypeLegalizer::PromoteIntegerResult and its dbg_value node is not transferred to the new node. t9: i32 = add nsw t5, t8 --> t31: i64 = add t30, t7 ; the dbg_value node is not transferred to the new i64 add node. For expansion, DAGTypeLegalizer::SetExpandedInteger calls transferDbgValues() but I couldn't find any place to...

...ely find a suitable in-tree test to verify this though. Can you check and let me know whether this works for your target? Thanks, Jonas > On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. > > Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me abou...

...gt; On Mar 8, 2018, at 5:44 PM, Se Jong Oh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I have a problem that dbg_value nodes are not transferred when integer DAG nodes are promoted. For example, an i32 add node is promoted to a i64 add node by DAGTypeLegalizer::PromoteIntegerResult and its dbg_value node is not transferred to the new node. > > t9: i32 = add nsw t5, t8 à t31: i64 = add t30, t7 ; the dbg_value node is not transferred to the new i64 add node. > > For expansion, DAGTypeLegalizer::SetExpandedInteger calls transferDbgValues() but I couldn’t find...

...ree test to verify this though. Can you check and let me know whether this works for your target? Thanks, Jonas On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com<mailto:sejooh at microsoft.com>> wrote: Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me about whether m...

...missed the issue originally. > Definitely looks like a bug. I think the correct solution is that if > custom legalization returns a node, ReplaceNodeWith should be used > rather than the existing codepath. Actually, it should probably be using TLI.ReplaceNodeResults as well, like the way PromoteIntegerResult calls into the target for custom legalization. -Eli

...test to verify this though. Can you check and let me know whether this works for your target? > > Thanks, > Jonas > > > On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. > > Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me abou...

Hi, I'm stumped by how to handle fpowi. Here is the context: my architecture has i64, f32, and f64 registers. No i32. For calls & returns, we promote i32 to i64. There is no support in the architecture to perform fpowi - it has to go through the runtime. I'm using gfortran + dragonegg + llvm3.4 to generate .ll files via plugin. The fortran expression REAL = REAL ** INTEGER*4

...test to verify this though. Can you check and let me know whether this works for your target? > > Thanks, > Jonas > > > On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: > > Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. > > Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me abou...

...n you check and let me know whether this works for your target? >> >> Thanks, >> Jonas >> >> >> On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. >> >> Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide...

...ree test to verify this though. Can you check and let me know whether this works for your target? Thanks, Jonas On Mar 13, 2018, at 7:45 PM, Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com<mailto:sejooh at microsoft.com>> wrote: Thanks for help! I think that sign extension is not involved here. PromoteIntegerResult is called since i32 is not a legal type in my target and the legalizer promotes operations with i32 result type to i64 operations. I think that SetPromotedInteger seems to be a common place for all promotions like SetExpandedInteger. Jonas, I would appreciate it if you can guide me about whether m...

On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 08:50 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:31 AM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: > > assert(Res.getValueType() == N->getValueType(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 && > > "Invalid operand expansion"); > > > > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 >

On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:07 AM, sanjiv gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-08-18 at 08:50 -0700, Eli Friedman wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:31 AM, <Sachin.Punyani at microchip.com> wrote: >> > assert(Res.getValueType() == N->getValueType(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 && >> > "Invalid operand

Hi, I have a problem that dbg_value nodes are not transferred when integer DAG nodes are promoted. For example, an i32 add node is promoted to a i64 add node by DAGTypeLegalizer::PromoteIntegerResult and its dbg_value node is not transferred to the new node. t9: i32 = add nsw t5, t8 --> t31: i64 = add t30, t7 ; the dbg_value node is not transferred to the new i64 add node. For expansion, DAGTypeLegalizer::SetExpandedInteger calls transferDbgValues() but I couldn't find any place to...