[llvm-commits] [llvm] r69574 - /llvm/trunk/lib/Transforms/Scalar/InstructionCombining.cpp
sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com
Thu Apr 23 00:28:28 CDT 2009
Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Sanjiv Gupta wrote:
>> Dan Gohman wrote:
>>> Are you planning to resubmit r58505? It was reverted in r58547 with
>>> a message indicating that it would be resubmitted. That patch would
>>> appear to make this r69574 unnecessary.
>> Right. Even after that this change will still hold good just in case
>> a pointer size doesn't make valid index.
> If Instcombine isn't using a valid index type for this optimization
> for some target, it really should be fixed. Silently falling back to
> not doing this may just be hiding problems.
>> Chris had suggested that 58505 alone is not enough as the bc encoding
>> uses 1 bit to encode i32/i64 for index types.
>> He had suggested that we should be able to write i16 type indexes and
>> should be able to get back them by the command seq below.
>> $ llvm-as < test.ll | llvm-dis | llvm-as | llvm-dis
>> When I tried this with 58505, it worked.
>> So the only additional thing is that we probably need to do the
>> in the documentation.
>> Let me know if this understanding is incorrect. Better you can get
>> me a
>> test case.
> I'm not very familiar with the bitcode encoding, but at a quick
> glance it looks like a full type is stored with each operand.
> If this just needs a documentation update, please do that and
> re-apply 58505.
I too had similar observation last time I debugged that area.
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
More information about the llvm-commits