Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "shti".
Did you mean:
sti
2009 Dec 01
4
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Hello,
I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using
LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers
wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit
shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a bug in the implementation. The
affected function is ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit in
LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp.
2009 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Hi Javier,
> The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example
> can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted
> left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6
> is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be
> equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current
>
2009 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Hi Duncan,
The problem is the implementation of the expansion. Perhaps an example
can help illustrate better. Take the case of a 64-bit integer shifted
left by say 6 bits and is decomposed using 32-bit registers. Because 6
is less than the 32 (the register size) the resulting low part should be
equal to the source low part shifted left by 6 bits. The current
implementation places a zero
2009 Dec 01
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using
> LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers
> wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit
> shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a
2009 Dec 01
2
[LLVMdev] Possible bug in ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit
Duncan,
It seems that the code you pasted came from the function
ExpandShiftByConstant and indeed it looks correct. In my example I used 6
as the shift amount but forgot to mention that it's stored in a register.
Otherwise ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit wouldn't get called. Below is the
execution of DAGTypeLegalizer::ExpandIntRes_Shift() using my example
showing how
2009 May 21
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass?
> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would
> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction
> and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you
> anticipating something more
2009 May 20
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman
> <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector
>>
>> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from
>>
>> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant
2009 May 21
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add new phase to legalization to handle vector operations
On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote:
>> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass?
>> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would
>> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction