[llvm-commits] [PATCH] Teach IRBuilder about simplifying BinOp(Value, Constant)

[Dan Gohman]

On Jan 4, 2009, at 2:55 AM, Török Edwin wrote:

> On 2009-01-04 05:26, Dan Gohman wrote:
>> I fixed utils/vim/vimrc; it should now do the right thing.
>>
>
> Thanks.
> Since you know more about vim indenting than me, here are a couple  
> more
> things that I have to do manually, to make my code look like
> the rest in IRBuilder.h (I assume these are part of the LLVM coding
> style too?):
> - class is not indented vs namespace (vim wants to indent)
> - public: is not indented vs class (vim wants to indent)
> - when I wrap arguments due to exceeding 80-col, vim doesn't align the
> beginning with the ( on previous line, so I have to manually tab/space
> align it
>
> Are these fixable?

I did the public: and argument ones.  I didn't see an easy way to do
the namespace one.

>>             (P <= *I && P > UI->getParent()->begin()))
>>
>> BasicBlock::iterator is not random-access so it doesn't support <=  
>> or >.
>> Unfortunately, what's probably happening here is both sides being
>> implicitly converted to pointers which are then compared, which is
>> not good.  This is the dark side of LLVM's style of iterators :-(.  I
>> just
>> added some code which I believe will catch this error at compile-time
>> now.
>>
>
> Oops. In that case I only check that the instruction is in the same
> BasicBlock, and require the caller
> to not move the insertion point backwards. This should ensure that the
> Value I return exists at the current insertionpoint.
> [I could iterate and check that the instruction is really there, but
> that would be a waste of time, since I know it is...]
> Since this is a default off feature (requiring an explicit template
> parameter to activate) I think it is ok.
> What do you think?

How about having it act as if reuseOps is false when InsertPt is not
equal to BB->end()?  Would that still be permissive enough for your
needs?

Dan