On 10/18/07, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2007, at 1:32 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > Author: void > > Date: Thu Oct 18 03:32:37 2007 > > New Revision: 43120 > > > > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=43120&view=rev > > Log: > > Pointer arithmetic should be done with the index the same size as > > the pointer. > > Nice catch Bill. Should this use sign extend or zero extend if the > value is too small? It seems like zext would be more appropriate, > There was a similar case before with CFA_OFFSET that I tackled before. I went back and forth with Anton a few times and he came up with essentially the patch you saw there:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2007-August/010424.html I was thinking about sign-extend vs. zero-extend afterwards and I think the reason behind the sign-extend is to allow for negative indexes. Does that sound reasonable? -bw _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
