similar to: [LLVMdev] Bitcasts between pointers with different address spaces

Hi, I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different address spaces illegal. Address spaces are not required to be disjoint. In the N1169 spec, it says A non-null pointer into an address space A can be cast to a pointer into another address space B, but such a cast is undefined if the source pointer does not point to a location in B. If the address spaces

Mon Ping Wang wrote: > Hi, > > I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different > address spaces illegal. Address spaces are not required to be disjoint. > In the N1169 spec, it says > A non-null pointer into an address space A can be cast to a pointer into > another address space B, but such a cast is undefined if the source > pointer does not

Mon Ping Wang wrote: > > On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > >> Mon Ping Wang wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different >>> address spaces illegal. Address spaces are not required to be disjoint. >>> In the N1169 spec, it says >>> A

On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Mon Ping Wang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different >> address spaces illegal. Address spaces are not required to be disjoint. >> In the N1169 spec, it says >> A non-null pointer into an address space A can be cast to a

On Sep 8, 2012, at 12:21 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Mon Ping Wang wrote: >> >> On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:10 PM, Nick Lewycky<nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: >> >>> Mon Ping Wang wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I don't think we should make bit casts between pointers with different >>>> address

If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to verify the address space size in the verifier or in the auto-upgrade mechanisms. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 2:32 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Chris Lattner; Mon Ping Wang; llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; > llvmdev at

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:53 PM > To: Mon Ping Wang > Cc: Villmow, Micah; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at

Ping! > -----Original Message----- > From: Villmow, Micah > Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:12 PM > To: 'Chris Lattner'; 'Mon Ping Wang' > Cc: 'llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu'; 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' > Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > Resending since I got an error. >

On Sep 13, 2012, at 5:55 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com> wrote: >>> The pointer size is target dependent so it seems strange to choose an arbitrary size to convert to and from. Are you making a practical argument that 64b is sufficient on all machines so all targets can use that? In other words, pointers > 64 doesn't make any sense in terms of the address space? (A

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to verify the address space size in the verifier or in the auto-upgrade mechanisms. And that's why I didn't like this approach in the first place. -Eli >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman

We can't add a circular dependency between Target and VMCore. -Eli On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > Ping! > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Villmow, Micah >> Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:12 PM >> To: 'Chris Lattner'; 'Mon Ping Wang' >> Cc: 'llvm-commits at

On Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:34:52 -0700 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Villmow, Micah > <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > If I don't bring in TargetData, then there is no way for me to > > verify the address space size in the verifier or in the > > auto-upgrade mechanisms. > > And that's why I

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:43 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: LLVM Developers Mail > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space > arithmetic > > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > wrote: > >

On 08/08/2013 02:52 PM, Micah Villmow wrote: > This is something I proposed last year, so you might want to read up on that discussion first. > > You can find it here: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-September/053277.html Uhm... I read the discussion, probably I've not understood the problem well: the conclusion (it has been committed?) is that to handle address

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:43 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: LLVM Developers Mail >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] FW: RFC: Supporting different sized address space >>

On Thu, 30 Aug 2012 15:58:54 -0700 Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Villmow, Micah > <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:43 PM > >> To: Villmow,

"Villmow, Micah" <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> writes: > Sorry, <4 x i8> should convert to a <1 x i32>. Why? I'm really confused. Shouldn't this converts to a <4 x i32>? -Dave

Sorry, <4 x i8> should convert to a <1 x i32>. What currently is happening is that it is returning a <2 x i32> because <1 x i32> does not exist. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: Rotem, Nadav [mailto:nadav.rotem at intel.com] > Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 10:51 AM > To: Villmow, Micah; Developers Mailing List > Subject: RE: Vector promotion broken

> -----Original Message----- > From: Mon P Wang [mailto:monping at apple.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 1:12 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Dan Gohman; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > Hi, > > On Sep 11, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Villmow, Micah wrote: > > > > >

The comments in the code state it should do bitcast, op, then bitcast, not extend, op and truncate. "SDValue VectorLegalizer::PromoteVectorOp(SDValue Op) { // Vector "promotion" is basically just bitcasting and doing the operation // in a different type. For example, x86 promotes ISD::AND on v2i32 to // v1i64." So following the same logic <4 x i8> bitcasts into a