[llvm-commits] [llvm] [PATCH] fpround libcall

[Evan Cheng]

On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes wrote:

> Hi Evan,
> I'm not used to run x86 tests, what would be a good "complete round"  
> test?

Please run at least all of MultiSource. All of the Application and  
Benchmark tests should pass. If you have license of SPEC, then please  
also run SPEC 2000.

Evan

>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com>  
> wrote:
>> Also, it might be cleaner to just call ExpandOp. I'd hate to have 2
>> places that generate the same libcall.
>>
>> Evan
>>
>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 6:16 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
>>
>>> +      } else if (SrcVT == MVT::f64 && DstVT == MVT::f32 &&
>>>
>>> The check for DstVT == MVT::f32 is unnecessary. I would turn it into
>>> an assertion instead.
>>>
>>> +                 getTypeAction(SrcVT) == Expand) {
>>> +        SDOperand Lo;
>>> +        Result = ExpandLibCall(RTLIB::FPROUND_F64_F32, Node, false,
>>> Lo);
>>> +        break;
>>>
>>> I think the patch is alright. But I am not completely comfortable to
>>> just say yes. Can you do a complete round of testing on x86?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Evan
>>>
>>> On Jul 7, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> This patch address the problem I have with fpround on Mips as
>>>> discussed at llvmdev. I think this should have been implemented in
>>>> SoftenFloatOps
>>>> like suggested by Duncan. The problem is that this methods are only
>>>> called by
>>>> "DAG.LegalizeTypes()", which is currently commented in
>>>> SelectionDAGISel::CodeGenAndEmitDAG. I'll implement there too and
>>>> see what
>>>> happens, but what do you think about this for now?
>>>> Btw, the only target that does setConvertAction from f64 -> f32 to
>>>> Expand is X86, but
>>>> in the same code block it declares a f64 Register Class, so i think
>>>> the patch won't
>>>> break x86 behavior.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Bruno Cardoso Lopes
>>>> http://www.brunocardoso.cc
>>>> "When faced with untenable alternatives, you
>>>> should consider your imperative."
>>>> <
>>>> LegalizeDAG 
>>>> .cpp.patch>_______________________________________________
>>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llvm-commits mailing list
>>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llvm-commits mailing list
>> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Bruno Cardoso Lopes
> http://www.brunocardoso.cc
> "When faced with untenable alternatives, you
> should consider your imperative."
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits