Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "rightth".
Did you mean:
right&th
2003 Nov 20
3
[LLVMdev] Basic Block Chaining
...r friendly" to simply supply the branch
instruction. That is, provide a method on Function that appends a
BasicBlock to the end of the block list. If the existing final basic
block doesn't have a terminating instruction, simply add one that points
to the block being appended. Is this the RightThing(tm) or are there
good reasons this can't or shouldn't be done?
The method I'm thinking of is something like:
Function::chainBasicBlock( BasicBlock* bb )
{
BasicBlock& previous = this->back();
TerminatorInst* terminator = previous.getTerminator();
if ( ! termin...
2013 Jul 15
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86/asm: avoid mnemonics without type suffix
On 07/14/2013 12:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't think you've actually tested that, have you? (x86-64)
>
> Oh, you're right, for constants > 5 bits you have that other thing
> going on. I didn't think about the fact that the constant changed in
> the
2013 Jul 15
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86/asm: avoid mnemonics without type suffix
...dly thing to do toward the human programmer.
> Unfortunately gas doesn't, nor does e.g. NASM.
Yeah, that's definitely a "quality of implementation" issue. Clearly
"bt $63,mem" is talking about bit 63, and a quality assembler would
either warn about it or just do the RightThing(tm) like the intel
manual says.
I'd actually like to say "think you" to the gas people, because gas
today may not do the above, but gas today is still *lightyears* ahead
of where it used to be two decades ago. Back in those dark ages, GNU
as was even documented to be *only* about...
2003 Nov 20
0
[LLVMdev] Basic Block Chaining
...simply supply the branch
> instruction. That is, provide a method on Function that appends a
> BasicBlock to the end of the block list. If the existing final basic
> block doesn't have a terminating instruction, simply add one that points
> to the block being appended. Is this the RightThing(tm) or are there
> good reasons this can't or shouldn't be done?
I agree with Vikram that this would be hard to implement in a generally
useful way. Besides that, you can always do something like this to add a
new basic block, assuming the last basic block in the function is
untermi...
2013 Jul 14
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] x86/asm: avoid mnemonics without type suffix
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think you've actually tested that, have you? (x86-64)
Oh, you're right, for constants > 5 bits you have that other thing
going on. I didn't think about the fact that the constant changed in
the middle of the thread (it started out as 1).
We use the gcc constraint