================
@@ -2720,6 +2720,22 @@ TEST_F(ConstantRangeTest, binaryAnd) {
EXPECT_EQ(R16_32.binaryAnd(R0_99), R0_32);
EXPECT_EQ(R0_99.binaryAnd(R16_32), R0_32);
+ // 'And' with leading bits are masked (with common leading bits stripped)
+ ConstantRange RMaskedL(APInt(8, 0b10'00101'1), APInt(8, 0b10'10000'0 + 1));
+ ConstantRange RMaskedR(APInt(8, 0b10'11111'0), APInt(8, 0b10'11111'1 + 1));
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedL.binaryAnd(RMaskedR).getLower(), APInt(8, 0b10'00101'0));
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedR.binaryAnd(RMaskedL).getLower(), APInt(8, 0b10'00101'0));
+
+ ConstantRange RMaskedL1(APInt(8, 0b00'011'010), APInt(8, 0b00'100'100 + 1));
+ ConstantRange RMaskedR1(APInt(8, 0b00'111'010), APInt(8, 0b00'111'110 + 1));
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedL1.binaryAnd(RMaskedR1).getLower(), APInt(8, 0b00'011'000));
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedR1.binaryAnd(RMaskedL1).getLower(), APInt(8, 0b00'011'000));
+
+ ConstantRange RMaskedL2(APInt(8, 0b0000'0111u), APInt(8, 0b0000'1101u + 1u));
+ ConstantRange RMaskedR2(APInt(8, 0xff), APInt(8, 0));
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedL2.binaryAnd(RMaskedR2), RMaskedL2);
+ EXPECT_EQ(RMaskedR2.binaryAnd(RMaskedL2), RMaskedL2);
----------------
zsrkmyn wrote:
So, should I `EXPECT_GE(lower, 0)` or `EXPECT_EQ(lower, 0)`? I prefer the
former, because tests won't fail if the algorithm is further optimized.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/120352
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
