[PATCH] D35471: [Polly] [RFC] Calculate AST expression type

Maximilian Falkenstein via Phabricator via llvm-commits llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 17 16:18:38 PDT 2017


maxf planned changes to this revision.
maxf added a comment.

Hello Tobias,

as for (1): Hmm, I can do that, at least for now. I'd rather have them in in the final version so that we also test this feature whenever possible, but I guess it makes sense to differ between tests that fail and tests that only fail due to format changes now. I'd disable printing bounds in ISL_C format for now and put it back in the final version, along with fixed testcases, if that's okay with you?

for (2): Not exactly. There are two reasons why the given test fails:

- We already generate a (more restrictive) precondition, the failure type you observed can be introduced because the register numbers increase because we codegenerate the precondition in front of the loop which now needs more registers.
- We only use 64 bits when we can proof that it will be enough. In the test case you indicated this seems not to be possible inside the precondition as the inputs are already 64 bit integers if I read the test correctly.

Best,

Maximilian



================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/IslAst.cpp:515
+  return cond;
+}
+
----------------
grosser wrote:
> Would it make sense to use ```isl_ast_node_foreach_descendant_top_down```?
Ah, I didn't know about that one. Well, this function visits all AST nodes and the expression trees they reference (that's why the method is overloaded), so in order to use `isl_ast_node_foreach_descendant_top_down` I'd still need a function that does a big switch on the node statement, so it wouldn't make the code much shorter.


https://reviews.llvm.org/D35471





More information about the llvm-commits mailing list