Okay. Fixed. :-) -bw
On 10/18/07, Chris Lattner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Oct 18, 2007, at 10:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > > > 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? > > Negative indices aren't allowed in EXTRAACT_VECTOR_ELT. > > -Chris > _______________________________________________ > llvm-commits mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits > _______________________________________________ llvm-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
