similar to: [LLVMdev] i1 Values

I can see two reasons for it: 1) An integer way to represent -0 and +0 from the floating point domain. 2) unsigned i1 represents 0 and 1(via unsigned values being in the range 0 -> (2^N) - 1, but a signed i1 represents [-]0 and -1(via signed values being in the range -2^(N-1) -> 2^(N-1) - 1. This could be important when promoting to large integers and determining if sign or zero extension

The vnot PatFrag uses ImmAllOnesV which should put an OPC_CheckImmAllOnesV in the matcher table. And the matcher table should call ISD::isBuildVectorAllOnes. I believe we use vnot with vXi1 vectors on X86 and I haven't seen any issues. The FIXME you pointed to seems related to a scalar patcher not a vector pattern. In that case the issue is that the immediate matcher for scalars calls

A constant i1 is stored as a one bit APInt wrapped in a ConstantInt which is then wrapped in ConstantSDNode for SelectionDAG. The BUILD_VECTOR will just point to the same ConstantSDNode for each element. There is no concept of a sign in the storage. It's just a bit. Whether or not its treated as 1 or negative 1 is going to depend on the code looking at the value including printing code. And

Hello, It looks like that in the DAG matcher, the DAG has a xor with '-1' for checking a true value vector for instance, %cmp4.i = icmp ne <8 x i32> %6, %5 %7 = xor <8 x i1> %cmp4.i, <i1 true, i1 true, i1 true, i1 true, i1 true, i1 true, i1 true, i1 true> [use of %7] results in vector of '-1' in the DAG. This also seems the reason why LLVM's vnot PatFrag

Hi! We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated bitcode. We are using lli.exe and llvm-gcc.exe from official 2.6 LLVM release. We have localized the problem to following c code: -------------------- int f(unsigned char x) __attribute__((noinline)); int f(unsigned char x) { return x - 1; } int main()

Sanjay: let me know if this is something that will apply to 3.9. Thanks, Hans On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Quick update - the bug existed before I refactored that chunk in > InstSimplify with: > https://reviews.llvm.org/rL275911 > > In fact, as discussed in https://reviews.llvm.org/D22537 - because we have a

Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: > Hi Hans - > > Yes, I think this is a good patch for 3.9 (cc'ing David Majnemer as code > owner). The functional change was

Thanks for notifying me. Yes, this was a recent change. Taking a look now. On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 1:49 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com> wrote: > +Sanjay, who touched this last. :-) > > On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I'm hitting the

Hi all, I'm experimenting with the Interpreter and all look good so far :) Unfortunately when I play with the visitBinartOperator() method I have the following assertion error: Support/APInt.cpp:233: llvm::APInt llvm::APInt::operator*(const llvm::APInt &) const: Assertion `BitWidth == RHS.BitWidth && "Bit widths must be the same"' failed. I have recompiled llvm and

David, Sanjay: ping? On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > InstructionSimplify.cpp, not InstCombineSelect.cpp? > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Sanjay Patel <spatel at rotateright.com> wrote: >> Hi

LGTM On Wednesday, July 27, 2016, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > David, Sanjay: ping? > > On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org > <javascript:;>> wrote: > > Sure. David, what do you think about merging this to 3.9? > > > > Sanjay: are you saying I'd just apply that diff to > >

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: Nice!

Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hi! > > We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute > it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated > bitcode. The interpreter is under-maintained in general, but this bug in particular is fixed SVN as-of r86428. Are you on a platform that isn't supported by llvm's jit? Nick > We are using

Hi everyone! The fptoui/fptosi instructions are currently specified to return a poison value if the rounded-towards-zero floating point number cannot be represented by the target integer type. The motivation for this behavior is that overflowing float to int casts in C are undefined behavior. However, many newer languages prefer to have a float to integer cast that is well-defined for all input

Hi, Has anyone had any success with running different PassManagers on llvm::Modules they've already JITed and are executing? In detail: 1) getting the IR, in form of an llvm::Module 2) calling PassManager->run() on the module 3) calling getFunction() and getPointerToFunction() to JIT the module 4) executing the JITed code using the function pointer received in step 3 and then what I

Hi folks, I'm hitting the below assertion failure when compiling this small piece of C code (repro.c, attached). My command line is: bin/clang --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -c -O2 repro.c clang is built from top of trunk as of this morning. It only happens at -O2, and it doesn't happen with the default target (x86_64). I tried to reproduce using just 'llc -O2' but didn't

I tried the following: - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF, 64, false)) - ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt64Ty(Ctx), APInt(-1, 64)) I am receiving the following error: Assertion `NumBits <= MAX_INT_BITS && "bitwidth too large" failed -- Thanks & Regards, Dipanjan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hi, Scalar evolution seems to be wrapping around the trip count in the following loop. void add (int *restrict a, int *restrict b, int *restrict c) { char i; for (i = 0; i < 255; i++) a[i] = b[i] + c[i]; } When I run scalar evolution on the bit code, I get a backedge-taken count which is obviously wrong. $> cat loop.ll ; Function Attrs: nounwind define void @add(i32* noalias

Hi, I found the following wiki page in the Unladen Swallow project: http://code.google.com/p/unladen-swallow/wiki/CodeLifecycle This would appear to answer my question. Could someone confirm for me if it's definitely unsafe to attempt to optimise/JIT any Modules while a different thread is currently executing a JITed function which has been generated from them? Or am I just missing

Eli, Thanks for responding. Yes, I read the error message but it seems odd that it would be trying to use more than 64 bits. It compiles and executes in gcc on 32 bit arch just fine. I'll probably take your suggestion and file a bug with a reduced testcase. Thanks again, Ryan On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2012