search for: simplety

I'm trying to understand why this assertion is here. LegalizeAction getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { assert((unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && (unsigned)VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy < sizeof(CondCodeActions[0])*4 && "Table isn't big enough!"); LegalizeAction Action = (LegalizeAction) ((CondCodeActions[CC] >> (2*VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy)) & 3); assert(Action != Promote && "Can't promote condition code...

...n) { > assert(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && > (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && > "Table isn't big enough!"); > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= > ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimpleTy >> 5] |= (uint64_t)Action > << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2; } > > getCondCodeAction then becomes: > LegalizeAction > getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { > assert((unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(C...

...LegalizeAction Action) { assert(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimpleTy >> 5] |= (uint64_t)Action << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2; } getCondCodeAction then becomes: LegalizeAction getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { assert((unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) &&...

...(VT < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE && > > (unsigned)CC < array_lengthof(CondCodeActions) && > > "Table isn't big enough!"); > > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimplyTy >> 5] &= > > ~(uint64_t(3UL) << (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2); > > CondCodeActions[(unsigned)CC][VT.SimpleTy >> 5] |= (uint64_t)Action << > > (VT.SimpleTy - 32)*2; } > > > > getCondCodeAction then becomes: > > LegalizeAction > > getCondCodeAction(ISD::CondCode CC, EVT VT) const { > > assert(...

...false (gdb) n 146 if (MVT(VT).isInteger()) { (gdb) p isSim $2 = true So you'd assume it's the tests in isInteger() that are failing: /// isInteger - Return true if this is an integer, or a vector integer type. bool isInteger() const { return isSimple() ? ((SimpleTy >= FIRST_INTEGER_VALUETYPE && SimpleTy <= LAST_INTEGER_VALUETYPE) || (SimpleTy >= v2i8 && SimpleTy <= v2i64)) : isExtendedInteger(); } But... (gdb) p llvm::MVT::i8 >= FIRST_INTEGER_VALUETYPE $10 = true (gdb) p llvm::MVT:...

...m 1. Running pass 'ARM Instruction Selection' on function '@_ZL6createP6node_tii3v_tS1_d' The problem appears to be gcc 4.4 optimizing away comparisons of one plus the last item in the SimpleValueType enum, like this: bool operator==(const EVT VT) const { if (V.SimpleTy == VT.V.SimpleTy) { if (V.SimpleTy == MVT::LastSimpleValueType+1) return LLVMTy == VT.LLVMTy; return true; } return false; } I confirmed this by adding a dummy value to the enum that equals LastSimpleValueType+1, and both the warning and the fa...

Hi, > llvm[1]: Building Intrinsics.gen.tmp from Intrinsics.td > tblgen: IntrinsicEmitter.cpp:163: void EmitTypeForValueType(std::ostream&, > llvm::MVT::SimpleValueType): Assertion `false && "Unsupported ValueType!"' > failed. this came up before IIRC, but I don't remember the details - buggy system compiler? Try searching the archives. Also, if you

* Neale Ferguson: > So the SimpleTy variable which is a SimpleTypeValue is behaving strangely. > It's found within a private definition: > > union { > uintptr_t V; > SimpleValueType SimpleTy; > const Type *LLVMTy; > }; > > The comment in the above fix indicates that in this 6...

I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && "Table isn't big enough!"); What does the assertion mean ? thanks for all help!! shrey On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.c...

...it I was > told that fixing it would be too hard/expensive. I know, and it's somewhat unfortunate. However, this path is extremely hot in LLC, and was significantly contended using only two threads. I don't have a non-contended solution offhand. >> VTs[VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy] = VT; >> - return &VTs[VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy]; >> + sys::MemoryFence(); > > I don't think this fence actually does anything useful unless > users of the pointer do a fence before reading the contents > of the pointer. That said, I think alpha is the only...

Hi, I am beginning the porting process for Linux on System z (aka IBM Mainframe). I thought I¹d build LLVM first with the c and cpp backends so that tools like TableGen would be created that I¹d then use to process the .td files that I¹ll be creating. So I used svn to grab the code from the repository and ran configure and make. However, the build breaks at this point: llvm[1]: Building

...#pragma which can be used to do it and gcc 4.3 seems to be happy with the hack described but as Duncan says trying to force this behavior in a union is probably less than desirable in the long term. Another ugly hack that I tried: union { uintptr_t V; #ifdef _LP64 SimpleValueType SimpleTyU[2]; # define SimpleTy SimpleTyU[1] #else SimpleValueType SimpleTyU[1]; # define SimpleTy SimpleTyU[0] #endif const Type *LLVMTy; }; This works on my big endian 64-bit system but I've not seen what damage it may do on other platform types. On 4/7/09 4:09 PM, "Anton Korob...

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: > I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion > >  assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < sizeof(LoadExtActions[0])*4 && >           ExtType < array_lengthof(LoadExtActions) && >           "Table isn't big enough!"); > > What does the assertion mean ? That means you forgot to bump up LAST_VALUETYPE. -Eli

...truction Selection' on function > '@_ZL6createP6node_tii3v_tS1_d' > > > The problem appears to be gcc 4.4 optimizing away comparisons of one > plus the last item in the SimpleValueType enum, like this: > > bool operator==(const EVT VT) const { > if (V.SimpleTy == VT.V.SimpleTy) { > if (V.SimpleTy == MVT::LastSimpleValueType+1) > return LLVMTy == VT.LLVMTy; > return true; > } > return false; > } ValueTypes.h was particularly heavily impacted by the recent API changes, and it looks like it&...

Hello, > +static const uintptr_t minus_one = -1; -1 here is of signed int type. What if you will use -1ULL ? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

...ber of compilers it breaks it clearly needs to be changed. I'm not sure the enum needs to be an enum, how about turning it into a uintptr_t instead? Ciao, Duncan. > Another ugly hack that I tried: > > union { > uintptr_t V; > #ifdef _LP64 > SimpleValueType SimpleTyU[2]; > # define SimpleTy SimpleTyU[1] > #else > SimpleValueType SimpleTyU[1]; > # define SimpleTy SimpleTyU[0] > #endif > const Type *LLVMTy; > }; > > This works on my big endian 64-bit system but I've not seen what damage it > may do on other plat...

Thanks Eli ...I actually did that ..bumped it up by 2 that I had added. Any thing else that I might have done wrong ? I can see a different assert where it clearly depends on LAST_VALUETYPE assert((unsigned)VT.SimpleTy < MVT::LAST_VALUETYPE thanks shrey On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:14 PM, shreyas krishnan <shreyas76 at gmail.com> wrote: >> I tried adding them in my backend however I run into the assertion &...

...D::AND, MVT::v4i8) is MVT::v2i32; The reason why this occurs is: // See if this has an explicit type specified. std::map<std::pair<unsigned, MVT::SimpleValueType>, MVT::SimpleValueType>::const_iterator PTTI = PromoteToType.find(std::make_pair(Op, VT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy)); if (PTTI != PromoteToType.end()) return PTTI->second; assert((VT.isInteger() || VT.isFloatingPoint()) && "Cannot autopromote this type, add it with AddPromotedToType."); EVT NVT = VT; do { NVT = (MVT::SimpleValueType)(NVT.getSimpleVT().Simp...

...electionDAGLegalize::ExpandConstantFP() assumes that f32 is the smallest floating point constant type it’ll need to handle, and that MVT enum ordering reflects that. while (SVT != MVT::f32) { SVT = (MVT::SimpleValueType)(SVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy - 1); ... } That function, and possibly others, need to be taught how to handle half-floats, it looks like. -Jim On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Alessio Giovanni Baroni <alessiogiovanni.baroni at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > if I write the following simple program: > >...

...bug. > Specifically, SelectionDAGLegalize::ExpandConstantFP() assumes that f32 is > the smallest floating point constant type it’ll need to handle, and that > MVT enum ordering reflects that. > > while (SVT != MVT::f32) { > > SVT = (MVT::SimpleValueType)(SVT.getSimpleVT().SimpleTy - 1); > ... > } > > That function, and possibly others, need to be taught how to handle > half-floats, it looks like. > > -Jim > > On Jun 17, 2013, at 6:59 AM, Alessio Giovanni Baroni < > alessiogiovanni.baroni at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > i...