On Jul 18, 2012, at 6:16 PM, Richard Trieu wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:19 AM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> > wrote: > On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM, John McCall <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:28 AM, Chandler Carruth wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Richard Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, Chandler Carruth <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> I find the definition of APInt's operator== deeply troubling. Why *assert* >> if the bit widths aren't equal? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. The >> function that it calls to actually implement it turns around and considers >> mismatched bitwdiths to cause *inequality*. >> >> However it seems that there is a very simple definition of equality we could >> use instead: zero-extended equality for APInt, and sign-extended equality >> for APSInt. I wonder if there would be general support for making >> APInt::operator== and APSInt::operator== work in this more rational model... >> >> APInt has no knowledge of whether its high bit is a sign bit, so always >> zero-extending will be wrong in the case where it is in fact a sign bit. >> APSInt does know this, so if we want to support heterogenous comparisons, we >> should sign-extend if the APSInt is signed, and zero-extend if it is >> unsigned. Heterogenous comparison on APInt is fundamentally unsafe, so >> asserting there seems reasonable to me. >> >> Well, Nick's comment may obviate the extension question, which leaves us >> with a simpler problem of comparing the same sizes for equality or >> inequality. I don't actually see any problems comparing same-sized APInts >> and APSInts for equality or inequality as-if they were both APInts. Given >> two APSInts, I think that the signedness should participate in the equality >> test though... > > It seems silly for APInt to treat bitwidth inequality as an illegal operation > but APSInt to treat it as a semantic difference. APInt's assertions *do* > find bugs; I would much rather extend those to APSInt than have it forge a > new contract. > > I never intended to suggest inconsistency between the two. I just didn't > understand the motivation for the assertion even at the APInt layer. Nick > provided that though, which was all I needed. =] > > New patch. Switched int parameters to int64_t. APSInt::operator!= now > refers to APSInt::operator==
LGTM, thanks! -Chris
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
