Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
cranelift: Sign extend immediates in instructions that embed them. #4602
cranelift: Sign extend immediates in instructions that embed them. #4602
Changes from 2 commits
2dd1d08
76b3047
61ccd93
c8f720b
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It looks like it's a behavioral change if we panic here. The outer match just skips the instruction if it doesn't have an expansion for it. Maybe that's why the previous implementation duplicated so much code? I think @cfallin probably needs to weigh in on how this case should be handled.
Gotta say, though, I really like how much shorter your version is. I hope we can preserve that clarity even if this bit has to change.
It might help to introduce a function that's something like this (but I haven't tested this code, let alone compiled it):
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes, we don't want to hit an
unimplemented!()
here; I think we just want an empty match-arm body (_ => {}
) instead. That way we still construct theimm
but we just don't do anything with it.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wouldn't an empty match-arm body there cause
simple_legalize
to loop, trying to legalize the same instruction repeatedly?There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The toplevel loop is a
while let Some(inst) = pos.next_inst()
, so it's stepping through insts with no action taken in the loop body. Though actually the more precise thing to do is to replicate the fallback_ => { ... }
below, which setsprev_pos
first then continues, I think.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The statement after the
match
ispos.set_position(prev_pos);
and the intent appears to be to re-examine the result of every legalization. So it looks to me like termination of this function relies on every match arm replacing the instruction that it originally matched on. But yes, copying theprev_pos
assignment from the fallback case should work, I think.