search for: sext_from

...t; >> Are you suggesting adding 'sign_ext_from_i1' and 'zero_ext_from_i1' >> attributes? I'd be fine with that. It would also solve some >> existing code quality issues we have. > > These will be useful. But is it possible to be more generic? > sext_from type where type can be any type? The value of the > attribute would somehow tells us the type before extension? Why not the values codegen is actually looking for? Say, these attributes: known_bits(mask, bits) ; Partially known values. sign_bits(num) ; Number of leading...

On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > > > 4) There will be 4 new function attributes: > sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 > zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16 > These attributes will be placed on the function CALL node by > front-end > to inform the backend about such promotions and enable optimization > of > return

On Jun 5, 2008, at 11:33 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> n Jun 4, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: >>> >>> On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 4) There will be 4 new function attributes: >>>> sign_ext_from_i8,

On Jun 6, 2008, at 6:02 AM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: >> These will be useful. But is it possible to be more generic? >> sext_from type where type can be any type? The value of the >> attribute would somehow tells us the type before extension? > > Why not the values codegen is actually looking for? Say, these > attributes: > > known_bits(mask, bits) ; Partially known values. > sign_bits(num)...

On Jun 4, 2008, at 11:12 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > >> >> On May 29, 2008, at 10:30 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> 4) There will be 4 new function attributes: >>> sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 >>> zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16 >>>