search for: trunc_ptr

...d inttoptr is that one has to pick an intermediate integer type that is safe to convert to and from. Since the pointer size is target dependent, it seems unnatural to use ptrtoint and inttoptr for that. If we were to add first class support for this, we'd have to add three new instructions: trunc_ptr, sext_ptr, and zext_ptr, all of which would be used for pointer to pointer conversions. Why is it so bad to use ptrtoint/inttoptr with some large-enough integer size? Neither solution avoids exposing target information into IR. -Chris

...is that one has to pick an intermediate integer type that is safe to convert to and from. Since the pointer size is target dependent, it seems unnatural to use ptrtoint and inttoptr for that. > > If we were to add first class support for this, we'd have to add three new instructions: trunc_ptr, sext_ptr, and zext_ptr, all of which would be used for pointer to pointer conversions. > > Why is it so bad to use ptrtoint/inttoptr with some large-enough integer size? Neither solution avoids exposing target information into IR. > The pointer size is target dependent so it seems str...

...to pick > an intermediate integer type that is safe to convert to and from. > Since the pointer size is target dependent, it seems unnatural to use > ptrtoint and inttoptr for that. > > If we were to add first class support for this, we'd have to add three > new instructions: trunc_ptr, sext_ptr, and zext_ptr, all of which would > be used for pointer to pointer conversions. [Villmow, Micah] Would we really need to add pointer specific versions for these? Or could we as an alternative allow sext/zext/trunc to work on pointer types? > > Why is it so bad to use ptrtoint/in...

...one has to pick an intermediate integer type that is safe to convert to and from. Since the pointer size is target dependent, it seems unnatural to use ptrtoint and inttoptr for that. >> >> If we were to add first class support for this, we'd have to add three new instructions: trunc_ptr, sext_ptr, and zext_ptr, all of which would be used for pointer to pointer conversions. >> >> Why is it so bad to use ptrtoint/inttoptr with some large-enough integer size? Neither solution avoids exposing target information into IR. >> > > The pointer size is target dep...

...to pick an intermediate integer type that is safe to convert to and from. Since the pointer size is target dependent, it seems unnatural to use ptrtoint and inttoptr for that. >>> >>> If we were to add first class support for this, we'd have to add three new instructions: trunc_ptr, sext_ptr, and zext_ptr, all of which would be used for pointer to pointer conversions. >>> >>> Why is it so bad to use ptrtoint/inttoptr with some large-enough integer size? Neither solution avoids exposing target information into IR. >>> >> >> The pointe...

On Sep 13, 2012, at 7:51 AM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mon Ping Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:55 AM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mon Ping Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:55 AM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > > On Sep 12, 2012, at 2:45 PM, "Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >