search for: 049608

...onstant as a flag indicating that an immediate operand (5 > in this case) follows. Yes. this is fixed in mainline, with this series of patches: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049609.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049608.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049606.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049603.html Given the invasiveness of these patches, and the lack of significant testing since the have gone into mainline, I'd recommend...

hi, i found a problem in LLVM regarding the matching of 'Constant' nodes in the instruction selector. the testcase is for x86, but similar testcases for the other architectures (e.g. ppc) should be easy to create. i'm using the llvm-gcc 2.0 prerelease binary package. here is the testcase: int foo(int bar) { asm("movl %1, %0" : "=r"(bar) : "i"(5));

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 16 May 2007, Florian Brandner wrote: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049609.html > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049608.html > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049606.html > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20070514/049603.html > thank you for the hint. > If this blocks a significant piece of software from building with LLVM &g...