[llvm-commits] Fwd: DAG type Legalizer bug?

[Duncan Sands]

Hi Xiaoyi,

> I have updated the comment to reflex the change and attached the updated patch. Would you help commit it?

applied in commit 156909.  Thanks for fixing this!

Ciao, Duncan.

>
> Thanks,
> Xiaoyi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duncan Sands [mailto:baldrick at free.fr]
> Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:09 AM
> To: Bill Wendling
> Cc: Guo, Xiaoyi
> Subject: Re: Fwd: [llvm-commits] DAG type Legalizer bug?
>
> Hi Bill, the proposed change looks obviously correct to me.
>
> Ciao, Duncan.
>
> On 08/04/12 13:10, Bill Wendling wrote:
>> Hi Duncan,
>>
>> This concerns code you added to the LegalizeTypes.cpp file. Could you
>> take a look? :)
>>
>> -bw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>>> *From: *"Guo, Xiaoyi"<Xiaoyi.Guo at amd.com
>>> <mailto:Xiaoyi.Guo at amd.com>>
>>> *Subject: **Re: [llvm-commits] DAG type Legalizer bug?*
>>> *Date: *April 5, 2012 2:23:31 PM PDT
>>> *To: *"llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>"
>>> <llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>>
>>>
>>> Ping?
>>> *From:*llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> <mailto:llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>> [mailto:llvm-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]*On Behalf Of*Guo, Xiaoyi
>>> *Sent:*Tuesday, April 03, 2012 11:39 AM *To:*llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> <mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>  *Subject:*[llvm-commits] FW: DAG
>>> type Legalizer bug?
>>> Please review the attached patch which fixes a bug as described
>>> below. Our test case fails on amdil backend. I failed to create a
>>> test case with one of the backends built-in to llvm. So I couldn't
>>> add a test case to the unit test suite.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xiaoyi
>>> *From:*llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> <mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>> [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]*On Behalf Of*Guo, Xiaoyi
>>> *Sent:*Friday, March 23, 2012 8:11 PM *To:*LLVM Developers Mailing
>>> List *Subject:*[LLVMdev] DAG type Legalizer bug?
>>> The following looks like a bug in the legalizer to me.
>>> DAGTypeLegalizer::SplitRes_MERGE_VALUES(SDNode*N, unsigned ResNo,
>>> SDValue&  Lo, SDValue&  Hi) { SDValue Op = DisintegrateMERGE_VALUES(N,
>>> ResNo); GetSplitOp(Op, Lo, Hi); }
>>> DisintegrateMERGE_VALUE() returns SDValue(N, ResNo), where N is the
>>> MERGE_VALUE node itself.
>>> Then GetSplitOp() tries to retrieve split result for N from the
>>> SplitVectors cache and hit assert because split result is for N is not in the cache yet.
>>> Seems to me that DisintegrateMERGE_VALUES() should return the
>>> corresponding operand for the given ResNo, not the defined value.
>>> Please confirm if it's a bug, or if I'm missing something.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Xiaoyi
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>> =
>
>