On May 14, 2007, at 10:57 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:
>> PredicateOperand related bug fix.
>> @@ -2899,7 +2901,7 @@
>> else if (NodeHasOptInFlag)
>> EndAdjust = "-(HasInFlag?1:0)"; // May have a flag.
>>
>> - emitCode("for (unsigned i = " + utostr(NumInputs) +
>> + emitCode("for (unsigned i = " + utostr(NumInputs -
>> NumEAInputs) +
>> ", e = N.getNumOperands()" + EndAdjust + "; i !
>> = e; ++i) {");
>>
>
> Out of curiousity, why is this needed? Did you hit a bug with
> something when it got selected?
Yes.
> If the bug was with ISD::Constant's,
> this is a serious bug and this is not the right fix.
Huh? It has nothing to do with ISD::Constants. Remember
PredicateOperand with ExecuteAlways value is not part of the target
independent DAG. So something like this:
def BL : I<(ops i32imm:$func, pred:$p, variable_ops), ...>
The input node should have 2 operands (plus one if it has the
optional flag) plus the variable ops. The emit code has like this:
for (unsigned i = 2, e = N.getNumOperands()-(HasInFlag?1:0); i !=
e; ++i) {
AddToISelQueue(N.getOperand(i));
Ops0.push_back(N.getOperand(i));
}
If we don't discount NumEAInputs (i.e. 1 in this case, to account for
the single ExecuteAlways value), i's starting value is 3 and that's bad.
Evan
>
> -Chris
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
_______________________________________________
llvm-commits mailing list
llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
