thanks for pointing out this. I add this comment in all files for easy
reading.
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 6:01 PM, Fred Chow wrote:
> It is not easy to see there is a fall-thru unless one has a sharp eye. In
> general, people do not expect switch cases to fall thru. A convention that
> is wide
It is not easy to see there is a fall-thru unless one has a sharp eye.
In general, people do not expect switch cases to fall thru. A
convention that is widely followed in Open64 is to alert the reader by
adding:
/* fall thru */
at the end of the switch case before the case label that it is
Hi Fred,
if (((mINT32)TCON_v0(*tc)) >= 0), it will not break out of switch and fall
through code to check v1, v2, v3 be zero.
case MTYPE_U1:
case MTYPE_U2:
case MTYPE_U4:
case MTYPE_F4:
Is_True ( (TCON_v1(*tc)|TCON_v2(*tc)|TCON_v3(*tc)) == 0,
("High order word of %s
Hi Hui,
This version will not apply assertion if (((mINT32)TCON_v0(*tc)) >= 0),
so will only have half as much assertion coverage as what the original
code intended.
Fred
On 04/28/2011 08:09 PM, Hui Shi wrote:
Would a gatekeeper help review?
I have update the patch with new error message i
Would a gatekeeper help review?
I have update the patch with new error message in attachment.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Hui Shi wrote:
> you're right.
>
> I'll change message to "TCON_v1 not-sign extend result or High order word
> of %s TCON non zero"
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:26 P
you're right.
I'll change message to "TCON_v1 not-sign extend result or High order word of
%s TCON non zero"
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:26 PM, Yiran Wang wrote:
> I think it is good to improve the message, as we allow all 1s and all 0s.
>
> Regards,
> yiran
>
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:09 PM, H
I think it is good to improve the message, as we allow all 1s and all 0s.
Regards,
yiran
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 1:09 PM, Hui Shi wrote:
>
> Would gatekeeper help review this fix?
>
> I1,I2,I4 will be sign extend to I8 and store in TCON_I8,
> So when I1,I2,I4 is negative, TCON_V1 can be 0xf
