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
