llvm dev - May 2012 - [LLVMdev] Help with Values sign

How are you checking the return value?

I put your code in santos.ll and then executed it with lli, and I get 1 as
a return value.

lli santos.ll ; echo $?
1


Joey


On 27 May 2012 16:59, Santos Merino <santitox at hotmail.es> wrote:
> I show you the trace of calls to llvm that my compiler makes to generate
> the
> code above. bloques.back().last is of type Value* and bloques.back().bl is
> BasicBlock* (the current Block)
>
> bloques.back().last >
>
dyn_cast<Value>(ConstantInt::get(Type::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()), $1,
> true)); // $1 is an int
>    AllocaInst *alloc >                new AllocaInst(
>                  Type::getInt32Ty(getGlobalContext()), izq.c_str(),
> bloques.back().bl);
>    Value *derecha = bloques.back().last;
>    StoreInst *s = new StoreInst(derecha, alloc, false, bloques.back().bl);
>    bloques.back().last = alloc;
>    LoadInst* v1 >                new LoadInst(bloques.back().last,
"r", false,
> bloques.back().bl);
>    bloques.back().last = v1;
>    BasicBlock* blockReturn >               
BasicBlock::Create(getGlobalContext(), "Return", Main);
>    Value* last = bloques.back().last;
>    BranchInst::Create(blockReturn, bloques.back().bl);
>    ReturnInst::Create(getGlobalContext(), last, blockReturn);
>
> The source code corresponding to the IR representation would be:
>
>    a = 1
>    return a
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120527/26691d53/attachment.html>

When the ExecutionEngine finishs the JIT execution it says: 

  Result: 16777216

Santos Merino <santitox at hotmail.es> writes:
> When the ExecutionEngine finishs the JIT execution it says: 
>
>   Result: 16777216
There is nothing wrong with the IR code you initially posted. If you are
obtaining that result, it must be caused by other factor. My guess is
that you are messing up with the stack by calling the function the wrong
way or by obtaining the result from the JIT engine inappropriately.

Please show a test case that is complete and minimal and that
demonstrates your problem.