[PATCHES] R600/SI: VI fixes

[Matt Arsenault]

> On Jan 13, 2015, at 3:05 AM, Marek Olšák <maraeo at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> In a nutshell, getMCOpcode does this:
> 
> uint16_t x = (uint16_t)-1U;
> return x;
> 
> I don't think a sign extension occurs with uint16_t.
> 
> Marek


I thought getMCOpcode returned int16_t, which would be promoted to int for the compare. In any case, -1 doesn’t require knowing the exact type of it
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Matt Arsenault
> <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com> wrote:
>> On 01/12/2015 01:32 PM, Tom Stellard wrote:
>>> 
>>>> +      if (AMDGPUMCInstLower::getMCOpcode(Op32, TRI.ST.getGeneration())
>>>> == 65535)
>> 
>> This should compare -1, not the uint16_t value. I don't think this will work
>> correctly, the sign extended -1 opcode to int for the compare will not work
>> as expected
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits