search for: ailgnment

Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "ailgnment".

2009 Jan 12
2
[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc
...tionally take 64-bit sizes. >> >> I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? > > No, there's no reason to. There still are reasons to have it; just grep around for FreeInst. Function attributes are not yet sufficient to replace all of those yet. And if the ailgnment attribute on MallocInst were implemented, perhaps via posix_memalign or other target-specific mechanisms, then MallocInst would also have a reason to be kept. Dan
2009 Jan 12
0
[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc
...>> I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? >> >> No, there's no reason to. > > > There still are reasons to have it; just grep around for FreeInst. > Function > attributes are not yet sufficient to replace all of those yet. > > And if the ailgnment attribute on MallocInst were implemented, perhaps > via posix_memalign or other target-specific mechanisms, then > MallocInst > would also have a reason to be kept. isa<FreeInst>(X) can be replaced with: bool isFree(Instruction *X) { if (CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>...
2009 Jan 11
2
[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc
Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 23, 2008, at 9:14 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: >> I discovered that LLVM's malloc only allows a 32-bit size argument, >> so you >> cannot use it to allocate huge blocks on 64-bit machines. So I >> considered >> replacing all of my uses of LLVM's malloc instruction with calls to >> the libc >> malloc function instead.
2009 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc
>> There is no good reason for malloc to be an instruction anymore. I'd >> be very happy if it got removed. Even if we keep it, malloc/alloca >> should be extended to optionally take 64-bit sizes. > > I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? No, there's no reason to. -Chris
2009 Jan 13
2
[LLVMdev] malloc vs malloc
...;m curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? >>> No, there's no reason to. >> >> There still are reasons to have it; just grep around for FreeInst. >> Function >> attributes are not yet sufficient to replace all of those yet. >> >> And if the ailgnment attribute on MallocInst were implemented, perhaps >> via posix_memalign or other target-specific mechanisms, then >> MallocInst >> would also have a reason to be kept. > > isa<FreeInst>(X) can be replaced with: > > bool isFree(Instruction *X) { > if (Ca...