search for: replacevaluewith

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Pranav Bhandarkar <pranavb at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I am defining Hexagons version of ReplaceNodeResults to change the a node of > the type > A: i8 = INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN ... , ... , > > To > B: SIGN_EXTEND (A) > > After returning from my function, the type legalizer The type legalizer asked your target to replace an

Hi, I am defining Hexagons version of ReplaceNodeResults to change the a node of the type A: i8 = INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN ... , ... , To B: SIGN_EXTEND (A) After returning from my function, the type legalizer calss ReplaceValuesUsesWith to replace the uses of A with B. Unfortunately, it replaces the use of A in the new node B too. So the node now is B: SIGN_EXTEND(B) , which is clearly bad and the

Hi Pranav, >> as well as what Eli said, ReplaceNodeResults requires (IIRC) the new node > to >> have the same type as the old node, which doesn't seem to be the case >> here. > > Are you sure ? I see ReplaceNodeResults being called from functions such as > CustomWidenLowerNode and CustomLowerNode. > In the former, we are clearly expecting a change in type,

Hi Duncan, > as well as what Eli said, ReplaceNodeResults requires (IIRC) the new node to > have the same type as the old node, which doesn't seem to be the case > here. Are you sure ? I see ReplaceNodeResults being called from functions such as CustomWidenLowerNode and CustomLowerNode. In the former, we are clearly expecting a change in type, aren't we? Even in the latter,

...Type(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 && > > "Invalid operand expansion"); > > > > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 > > which is not letting us change load operation. > Besides the assert, the call to ReplaceValueWith(SDValue(N, 0), Res); also looks incorrect, because the back-end lowered load will return two values as well. - Sanjiv

...NumValues() == 1 && >> > "Invalid operand expansion"); >> > >> > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 >> > which is not letting us change load operation. >> > Besides the assert, the call to > ReplaceValueWith(SDValue(N, 0), Res); > > also looks incorrect, because the back-end lowered load will return two > values as well. Oh, I see what you mean! Sorry, I missed the issue originally. Definitely looks like a bug. I think the correct solution is that if custom legalization returns a node, Repl...

...is t27: v2i64 = or t15, t26 so it's a bitcast from v2i64 to v4i32 that we don't want to do anything special with so we return the input SDValue which TargetLowering::LowerOperationWrapper returns back to DAGTypeLegalizer::CustomLowerNode and then we get the assert in DAGTypeLegalizer::ReplaceValueWith. Thanks, Mikael > > -Tom > >> So in some cases it's ok for LowerOperation to return the same SDValue >> it was called on, and sometimes it's not? >> >> Can anyone shed some light on this? >> > > > > >> Thanks, >> Mikael >&g...

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 > which is not letting us change load operation. I don't really know the

...>>> > "Invalid operand expansion"); >>> > >>> > LOAD node has two values but the assertion checks N->getNumValues() == 1 >>> > which is not letting us change load operation. >>> >> Besides the assert, the call to >> ReplaceValueWith(SDValue(N, 0), Res); >> >> also looks incorrect, because the back-end lowered load will return two >> values as well. > > Oh, I see what you mean! Sorry, I missed the issue originally. > Definitely looks like a bug. I think the correct solution is that if > custom le...

Hi All, I have some doubt in LLVM Type Legalizer. How will LOAD:i8 with an i16 operand be lowered in type legalizer? (i16 type is not legal for our target) Following assertion in function ExpandIntegerOperand (file LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp) is not allowing us to change LOAD node. assert(Res.getValueType() == N->getValueType(0) && N->getNumValues() == 1 &&

Hi, I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned value. In several places it seems like it is assumed that LowerOperation can return three kinds of values: * Something completely new. * SDValue() * The same SDValue as LowerOperation was called on. However in some places, e.g. in

...N->getBasePtr(), Op2, Op3, + N->getMemOperand(), N->getSuccessOrdering(), + N->getFailureOrdering(), N->getSynchScope()); // Legalized the chain result - switch anything that used the old chain to // use the new one. ReplaceValueWith(SDValue(N, 1), Res.getValue(1)); @@ -2448,6 +2448,7 @@ void DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandIntRes_ATOMIC_LOAD(SDNode *N, N->getOperand(1), Zero, Zero, cast<AtomicSDNode>(N)->getMemOperand(), cast&lt...