From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: bugzilla-daemon@freedesktop.org Subject: [Bug 92709] "LLVM triggered Diagnostic Handler: unsupported call to function ldexpf in main" when starting race in stuntrally Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 03:06:30 +0000 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1186789466==" Return-path: Received: from culpepper.freedesktop.org (unknown [131.252.210.165]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645646E6AA for ; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:06:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" To: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org --===============1186789466== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="1446606390.CFb72a2.4663"; charset="UTF-8" --1446606390.CFb72a2.4663 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:06:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3D92709 --- Comment #7 from Matt Arsenault --- (In reply to Michel D=C3=A4nzer from comment #6) > (In reply to Matt Arsenault from comment #5) > > It seems bizarre that an llvm intrinsic would ever be changed to someth= ing > > involving a library call. >=20 > I think the exp2 -> ldexpf transform is rather questionable for us anyway, > since we have a native exp2 instruction, isn't it? Maybe we just don't wa= nt > to use the LibCallSimplifier pass? The comment at the top of > SimplifyLibCalls.cpp kind of sounds like "this is not the pass you're > looking for"... We do want this. ldexp is a full rate instruction, and exp2 is a quarter ra= te instruction. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug. --1446606390.CFb72a2.4663 Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2015 03:06:30 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Comment= # 7 on bug 92709<= /a> from Matt Arsenault 
(In reply to Michel D=C3=A4nzer from comment #6)
> (In reply to Matt Arsenault from comment #5)
> > It seems bizarre that an llvm intrinsic would ever be changed to =
something
> > involving a library call.
>=20
> I think the exp2 -> ldexpf transform is rather questionable for us =
anyway,
> since we have a native exp2 instruction, isn't it? Maybe we just don't=
 want
> to use the LibCallSimplifier pass? The comment at the top of
> SimplifyLibCalls.cpp kind of sounds like "this is not the pass yo=
u're
> looking for"...

We do want this. ldexp is a full rate instruction, and exp2 is a quarter ra=
te
instruction.

You are receiving this mail because: =20=20=20=20=20=20
  • You are the assignee for the bug.
--1446606390.CFb72a2.4663-- --===============1186789466== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: inline X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KZHJpLWRldmVs IG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdApkcmktZGV2ZWxAbGlzdHMuZnJlZWRlc2t0b3Aub3JnCmh0dHA6Ly9saXN0 cy5mcmVlZGVza3RvcC5vcmcvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9kcmktZGV2ZWwK --===============1186789466==--