> I am testing the following patch. While I was there, I made it agnostic
> as to the signedness of the switch expression and cases (in Ada they can
> be unsigned).
I forgot to emit a new BB after the unconditional branch to the default
label. Attached patch is otherwise the same as the previous
> I am testing the following patch. While I was there, I made it agnostic
> as to the signedness of the switch expression and cases (in Ada they can
> be unsigned).
Bootstraps (C, C++, Ada) and passes "make check".
Duncan.
___
llvm-commits mailing list
Hi Reid, thanks for replying.
> > > Please use APInt's to do the subtraction, instead of constant
> > > folding. Reid should be able to help you with this.
> >
> > I don't understand why. If APInt's are much more efficient, then
> > shouldn't ConstantExpr:getSub be improved to detect this cas
On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 17:40 +0100, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Chris, thanks for looking at the patch.
>
> > > In gcc, a switch case is a range of values that branch
> > > to a label, for example 1 .. 17 -> label. These are
> > > emitted as individual LLVM switch cases: 1 -> label,
> > > 2 -> label,
Hi Chris, thanks for looking at the patch.
> > In gcc, a switch case is a range of values that branch
> > to a label, for example 1 .. 17 -> label. These are
> > emitted as individual LLVM switch cases: 1 -> label,
> > 2 -> label, ..., 17 -> label. This works well except,
> > for example, when t
On Mar 12, 2007, at 1:48 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> In gcc, a switch case is a range of values that branch
> to a label, for example 1 .. 17 -> label. These are
> emitted as individual LLVM switch cases: 1 -> label,
> 2 -> label, ..., 17 -> label. This works well except,
> for example, when the
In gcc, a switch case is a range of values that branch
to a label, for example 1 .. 17 -> label. These are
emitted as individual LLVM switch cases: 1 -> label,
2 -> label, ..., 17 -> label. This works well except,
for example, when the range is INT_MIN .. 0 -> label,
in which case you can say goo
