search for: r140744

...umOperands() is the index of the added operand. This index is added to the front of VirtUseOps because it corresponds to an implicit operand. Are you saying that MI.addOperand() doesn't append the operand to the end? It really should. Also note that MI.addOperand() was mostly rewritten in r140744. /jakob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111012/32c57015/attachment.html>

Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg,

...etNumOperands() is the index of the added operand. This index is added to the front of VirtUseOps because it corresponds to an implicit operand. Are you saying that MI.addOperand() doesn't append the operand to the end? It really should. Also note that MI.addOperand() was mostly rewritten in r140744. /jakob -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111013/4921662f/attachment.html>