search for: setexpandedinteger

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. Thanks, Sejong From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at microsoft.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Jonas Devliegher...

...2 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 call trasnferDbgValues() for integer type promotion in DAGTypeLegalizer ::SetPromotedInteger and other places. I am wondering If I miss anything or the legalization needs to call transferDbgValues() for this case. I found this problem...

+ Adrian, Joshua + Jonas, since he contributed the transferDbgValues change in DAGTypeLegalizer::SetExpandedInteger > 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 DAGTypeLegalize...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. > > Thanks, > Sejong > > > > From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM > To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at micro...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. Thanks, Sejong From: vsk at apple.com<mailto:vsk at apple.com> <vsk at apple.com<mailto:vsk at apple.com>> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at micr...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. > > Thanks, > Sejong > > > > From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM > To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at micro...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. > > Thanks, > Sejong > > > > From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> > Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM > To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at micro...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. >> >> Thanks, >> Sejong >> >> >> >> From: vsk at apple.com <vsk at apple.com> >> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM >...

...anks 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 my understanding is correct or not. Thanks, Sejong From: vsk at apple.com<mailto:vsk at apple.com> <vsk at apple.com<mailto:vsk at apple.com>> Sent: Friday, March 9, 2018 3:19 PM To: Se Jong Oh <sejooh at micr...

...2 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 call trasnferDbgValues() for integer type promotion in DAGTypeLegalizer ::SetPromotedInteger and other places. I am wondering If I miss anything or the legalization needs to call transferDbgValues() for this case. I found this problem...