search for: virtuseop

Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg, false, // isDef true)); // isImplicit As, can be seen, it is presumed that this operand is always the la...

...> I think I've found a bug in this method. > > I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. > > For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: > > VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); > MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg, > false, // isDef > true)); // isImplicit > > As, can be seen, it is presumed that this...

...8:14 AM, Jonas Paulsson wrote:Hi, I think I've found a bug in this method. I ran it on an MI which already had two implicit-use operands, and which defined a register with a subregindex, ie reg::lo16. For the def-operand, with a subregindex, an implicit-use operand was added with this code: VirtUseOps.insert(VirtUseOps.begin(), MI.getNumOperands()); MI.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreateReg(VirtReg, false, // isDef true)); // isImplicit As, can be seen, it is presumed that this operand is always the la...