Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "2xi8".
Did you mean:
2x8
2010 Jul 21
1
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
...a ConstantExpr. Probably, LLVM has a function that
returns a ConstantExpr type size, I'm just ignorant in this aspect.
Another thought is can you delay the computing of the maximum storage of a
union type by using a max operator?
Your example can be represented as "struct { max([3xi32], [2xi8*],...) }",
this approach will avoid deciding the size in front-ends. But again allowing
TargetData.getTypeStorageSize() can compromise the architecture-neutrality
goal.
>
> 2) Extracting the values from the union require pointer casting, which
> means that the union cannot be an SSA...
2009 Feb 11
0
[LLVMdev] Bug in SelectionDAGBuild.cpp?
...ts, PartVT, ExtendKind);
Here:
assert(ValueVT.getVectorElementType() == PartVT &&
ValueVT.getVectorNumElements() == 1 &&
"Only trivial vector-to-scalar conversions should get
here!");
Because it switched PartVT from a vector type<2xi8> into a scalar
integer<i32>.
Any idea's on how I can get around this constraint?
Thanks,
Micah Villmow
Systems Engineer
Advanced Technology & Performance
Advanced Micro Devices Inc.
S1-609 One AMD Place
Sunnyvale, CA. 94085
P: 408-749-3966
-------------- next par...
2020 Nov 13
0
Get the layout offset of an aggregate type's leave types
Hi,
I have an aggregate type like
{i32, {i8*, i16}, [2xi8], ... },
[2 x {i8*, i32}],
and wanted to get the offset of a leaf type from the beginning of the
aggregate type at compilation time.
DataLayout::getStructLayout returns the layout of the current level of a
struct.
* Do we have any API to get the layout for all leave types for sub-struct?
* How...
2010 Jul 20
0
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 8:34 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>
> >> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This
> >> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union type
> in
> >> LLVM?
> > I think in its current
2010 Jul 20
4
[LLVMdev] Union type, is it really used or necessary?
On Jul 20, 2010, at 1:36 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
>> used to make the code manipulating the union type "well typed". This
>> approach seems work very well, is there really a need to keep union type in
>> LLVM?
> I think in its current state the unions should be removed from LLVM IR
> in next release. It's pretty much unfinished and noone is willing to