search for: setint

llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; P.setInt(-4); Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by design? Are negative values...

On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: >> llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; >> P.setInt(-4); >> Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by design? Are negative v...

I do agree that sign-extension is the right thing to do. Unlike bit-fields, llvm::PointerIntPair has asserts checking that the int value is within range. So if you assign an out of range value, it should fail with an assertion: llvm::PointerIntPair<SomeType*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(7); // can be made to fail as the valid range // of signed 3-bit values is [-4:3] The above code does not currently fail and instead fails for pip.setInt arguments with values in [-4:-1] which is actually unexpected and the reason I started this email thread. /Riyaz From: David Za...

Hi, On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: > llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; > > P.setInt(-4); > > Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. > But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int > field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field > which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by de...

Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: int x = 7; llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; pip.setInt(x); There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and not -1. So if you really want to set a negative and return a negative value, a separate method setSignedInt and getSignedInt may be OK. Further, sign-extension would need two shift instructions in X86 as opposed to no-sig...

...ys.com> wrote: > >> Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method >> for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: >> >> >> >> int x = 7; >> >> llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; >> >> pip.setInt(x); >> >> >> >> There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and >> not -1. >> >> >> >> So if you really want to set a negative and return a negative value, a >> separate method setSignedInt and getSignedInt may be O...

...On 04/04/2018 11:15, David Chisnall wrote: On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi, On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; P.setInt(-4); Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by design? Are negative values not...

The sign extension is correct. Otherwise setInt(-1) won’t work. If you don’t want sign extension, then use ‘unsigned’ and not ‘int’ in the template arguments. > On Apr 4, 2018, at 14:34, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I'd argue that bitfield sign extensions are surprising and are usually a...

...David Chisnall wrote: > On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: >>> llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; >>> P.setInt(-4); >>> Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by design? Are negati...

...David Chisnall wrote: > > On 4 Apr 2018, at 11:01, Florian Hahn via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > On 04/04/2018 05:34, Riyaz Puthiyapurayil via llvm-dev wrote: > > llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, signed> P; > > P.setInt(-4); > > Ideally, the value range for a 3-bit signed integer should be [-4,3]. But > the above call to setInt will fail. Essentially, the signed int field in > PointerIntPair is behaving the same as an 3-bit unsigned field which has > the legal value range of [0,7]. Is this by design...

...apurayil < Riyaz.Puthiyapurayil at synopsys.com> wrote: > Rather than “fixing” it, it might be better to support a separate method > for signed extension. My reasoning is as follows: > > > > int x = 7; > > llvm::PointerIntPair<double*, 3, int> pip; > > pip.setInt(x); > > > > There could be code out there that expects pip.getInt() to return 7 and > not -1. > > > > So if you really want to set a negative and return a negative value, a > separate method setSignedInt and getSignedInt may be OK. Further, > sign-extension would ne...

Dear ALL-R helpers, I want to let R get vector from c ,for example :numeric array ,vector .I saw some exmple like this : /* useCall3.c */ /* Getting an integer vector from C using .Call */ #include <R.h> #include <Rdefines.h> SEXP setInt() { SEXP myint; int *p_myint; int len = 5; PROTECT(myint = NEW_INTEGER(len)); // Allocating storage space p_myint = INTEGER_POINTER(myint); p_myint[0] = 7; UNPROTECT(1); return myint; } then type at the command prompt: R CMD SHLIB useCall3.c to get useCall3.so In windows p...

..._relative_addressing() a bit. Michael Müller (2): ntoskrnl.exe: Implement ExInitializeNPagedLookasideList. ntoskrnl.exe: Implement NtBuildNumber. Michael Stefaniuc (16): webservices: Delete duplicated return value checks. d3dx9/tests: Actually test the return of the effect SetInt() call. kernelbase: Avoid TRUE : FALSE conditional expressions. taskschd: Avoid TRUE : FALSE conditional expressions. dmime/tests: Test the return value of IDirectMusic_SetDirectSound(). gdi32: Avoid TRUE : FALSE conditional expressions. odbc32: Print the debug strings...

...est. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetBool() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetBoolArray() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetInt() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetIntArray() test. d3dx9: Simplify ID3DXBaseEffect::SetInt(). d3dx9: Use a loop in get_vector(). d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetFloat() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetFloatArray() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetVector() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value GetVectorArray...

...exiting. advapi32: Send shutdown notification to services. Rico Sch?ller (11): d3dx9: Handle a special case in ID3DXBaseEffect::GetInt(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetFloat(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetFloatArray(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetInt(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetIntArray(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetBool(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetBoolArray(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetMatrix(). d3dx9: Implement ID3DXBaseEffect::SetMatrixArray(). d3dx9: Implement...

...ee_constant_table(). d3dx9: Get rid of ID3DXConstantTableImpl typedef. d3dx9: Reorder argument check in D3DXGetShaderConstantTableEx(). d3dx9: Fix constant table trace. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetBoolArray() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetInt() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetIntArray() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetFloat() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetFloatArray() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect parameter value SetVector() test. d3dx9/tests: Add effect...