[PATCH] Change APInt comparison with uint64_t.
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
dexonsmith at apple.com
Wed Jun 24 15:34:57 PDT 2015
> On 2015 Jun 24, at 15:02, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 7:04 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2015 Jun 23, at 08:14, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi chandlerc,
> >
> > This patch changes the way APInt is compared with a value of type uint64_t.
> > Before the uint64_t value was truncated to the size of APInt before comparison.
> > Now the comparison takes into account full 64-bit precision.
> >
> > http://reviews.llvm.org/D10655
> >
> > Files:
> > include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
> > unittests/ADT/APIntTest.cpp
> >
>
> You never got a response from your llvmdev post. There are two ways to
> go here:
>
> 1. Assert that the value is in the range of BitWidth.
> 2. Extend this to 64-bits and compare.
>
> I'm inclined to agree that (2) is more useful -- developers can opt-in
> to the old behaviour by hand-constructing an `APInt()` -- but I'd like
> to hear from someone else before this is committed.
>
> In the meantime, review inline below.
>
> > Index: include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
> > ===================================================================
> > --- include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
> > +++ include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
> > @@ -1038,7 +1038,9 @@
> > /// the validity of the less-than relationship.
> > ///
> > /// \returns true if *this < RHS when considered unsigned.
> > - bool ult(uint64_t RHS) const { return ult(APInt(getBitWidth(), RHS)); }
> > + bool ult(uint64_t RHS) const {
> > + return getActiveBits() > 64 ? false : getZExtValue() < RHS;
> > + }
> >
> > /// \brief Signed less than comparison
> > ///
> > @@ -1054,7 +1056,9 @@
> > /// the validity of the less-than relationship.
> > ///
> > /// \returns true if *this < RHS when considered signed.
> > - bool slt(uint64_t RHS) const { return slt(APInt(getBitWidth(), RHS)); }
> > + bool slt(int64_t RHS) const {
> > + return getMinSignedBits() >= 64 ? isNegative() : getSExtValue() < RHS;
>
> Shouldn't this be `> 64`?
>
> You are right, it should bo.
>
> Consider `this` equal to 0x8000000000000000:
> - getMinSignedBits() => 64
> - isNegative() => false
> - this->slt(0x8000000000000001) => false
> - this->slt(0x8000000000000000) => false
> - this->slt(0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) => false (??)
>
> However your example is wrong.
> Consider `this` equal to 0x8000000000000000u == -0x8000000000000000:
> - getMinSignedBits() => 64
> - isNegative() => true
> - this->slt(0x8000000000000001u) => this->slt(-0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFF) => true
> - this->slt(0x8000000000000000u) => this->slt(-0x8000000000000000) => true (wrong!)
> - this->slt(0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFu) => true (wrong!)
>
> I will add that do unit tests. Thanks.
Right. I should have just used binary; my bin2hex converter is bad.
Sadly, what I meant was 0x400...0 (+/- 1). Please test this too ;).
>
> > + }
> >
> > /// \brief Unsigned less or equal comparison
> > ///
> > @@ -1070,7 +1074,7 @@
> > /// the validity of the less-or-equal relationship.
> > ///
> > /// \returns true if *this <= RHS when considered unsigned.
> > - bool ule(uint64_t RHS) const { return ule(APInt(getBitWidth(), RHS)); }
> > + bool ule(uint64_t RHS) const { return ult(RHS) || *this == RHS; }
>
> It's kind of gross to be calling into `ult()` and `==`, since those are
> both non-trivial.
>
> IMO, you should implement these directly:
> - sgt
> - slt
> - ugt
> - ult
>
> And implement these trivially in terms of those:
> - sge
> - sle
> - uge
> - ule
>
> That might be a good idea. But because this patch can be controversial I would like not to include this optimization. The optimization should go with another patch even before this one. I would like also to measure the performance impact but I don't know how to do it. Is the test-suite the thing to use?
>
> Another case is `ult` and `==` asymmetry. There is a method called `eq` but without overloading for uint64_t. Should I add APInt::eq(uint64_t)?
>
> - PB
More information about the llvm-commits
mailing list