search for: basetypes

Lately I've been using some utilities to increase the number of logic errors caught at compile time. I thought they might be useful to the LLVM project. I'd appreciate feedback on the below proposal. Would the community find these useful? -David RFC: Strong typedef utilities for LLVM -------------------------------------- Abstract -------- This proposal

On Jun 15, 2009, at 11:33 AM, David Greene wrote: > To reduce redundancy, developers must be able to write generic > patterns > like this: > > [(set DSTREGCLASS:$dst, // rr, rrr > (xor (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src1))), > (INTSRCTYPE (bitconvert (SRCTYPE SRCREGCLASS:$src2)))))], > > The substitution then fills in the appropriate types,

Chris Lattner wrote: > However, I don't see any reason to base this off of strings. Instead > of passing down "f32" as a string, why not do something like this > pseudo code: > > class X86ValueType { > RegisterClass RegClass; > ... > } > > def X86_f32 : X86ValueType { > let RegClass = FR32; > ... }; > def X86_i32 :

Below is attached a full IR module that can reproduce this issue, but the part to notice is this: %Foo96Bits = type <{ i24, i24, i24, i24 }> define internal fastcc i16 @main.0.1() unnamed_addr #2 !dbg !113 { Entry: %value = alloca %Foo96Bits, align 1 %b = alloca i24, align 4 %0 = bitcast %Foo96Bits* %value to i8*, !dbg !129 call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %0, i8* bitcast

On Monday 15 June 2009 14:35, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I suppose you could argue that additional parameters specifying > > the source and dest types could be passed, but why bother when > > it is already encoded in the mnemonic? That would just be > > adding error-prone redundancy. > > Why not synthesize the opcode string from the information passed down?

...ich the pointer is derived from. Take the following example. I know %0 = load i32, i32* %a, align 4, !tbaa !1 and store i32 %i.02, i32* %b, align 4, !tbaa !6 do not alias as their metadata !1 = !{!2, !3, i64 0} and !6 = !{!7, !3, i64 0} tell me that they are derived from different (incompatible) basetypes. However i can also walk up the IR chain and find out %a is point to basetype object of struct A and %b pointing to basetype object of struct B. Maybe, the metadata simplified the TBAA pass ? Thanks, -Trent ; ModuleID = 'tbaa.ll' target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:6...

I'm so close to having LLVM build on PowerPC. If there's any PowerPC experts, help? Lines like this: outs() << "[" << format("%2d", i) << "]" << "(sec " << format("%2d", int16_t(symbol->SectionNumber)) << ")" << "(fl 0x" <<

Is there a more convenient way to obtain a DIType given a Type than matching up the strings for the names? For example, given: struct S { int x, y; } s; void foo(S *a) { a->x = 0; a->y = 1; } There are DIType nodes for the struct Type: !6 = distinct !DICompositeType(tag: DW_TAG_structure_type, name: "S", file: !3, line: 1, size: 64, flags: DIFlagTypePassByValue,

I just reported this bug: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35314 This very simple IR is causing infinite recursion in llvm::DwarfUnit::getOrCreateTypeDIE in llvm 5.0.0. Is there a workaround? Is anyone willing to save me a recompile and check if this is fixed in 5.0.1 or trunk? `clang -c test.ll` repros the issue. ; ModuleID = 'test' source_filename = "test" target

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Tim > Northover via llvm-dev > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2018 3:07 AM > To: Nat! > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] A question to the DWARF experts on symbol > indirection > > Hi Nat!, > > On Wed, 25 Jul 2018 at 01:21, Nat! via

Hi, I am wondering if this behavior of creating debug info is correct. A type in compile unit entry is pointing to a type under subprogram entry?! This is the root cause of https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27579 0x0000000b: DW_TAG_compile_unit [1] * 0x00000026: DW_TAG_pointer_type [2] DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x002c => {0x0000002c})

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > I'm so close to having LLVM build on PowerPC.  If there's any PowerPC > experts, help? > Lines like this: >       outs() << "[" << format("%2d", i) << "]" >              << "(sec " << format("%2d",

Hi, I see things like this. What does it mean? Is it documented somewhere? Thanks. ; preds = %for.body https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html ; <label>:91: ; preds = %88 %92 = load i8**, i8*** @glob_complete_word.matches, align 8, !dbg !99798 %93 = load i32, i32* @glob_complete_word.ind, align 4, !dbg !99799 %94 = sext i32 %93 to i64, !dbg !99798

On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 12:06 PM, Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > 2017-06-19 8:45 GMT-07:00 Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >> Greetings, >> >> I have a Zig implementation of ceil which is emitted into LLVM IR like >> this: >> >> ; Function Attrs: nobuiltin nounwind >> define

Hi David, OK, I got that DIE in Compile Unit scope may point to a DIE in subprogram scope. But how about that we are emitting a subprogram entry that has no attributes? 0x0000002b: DW_TAG_subprogram [3] * 0x0000002c: DW_TAG_typedef [4] DW_AT_type [DW_FORM_ref4] (cu + 0x0040 => {0x00000040}) DW_AT_name [DW_FORM_strp] (

*From:* flang-dev <flang-dev-bounces at lists.flang-compiler.org> *On Behalf Of *Eric Schweitz (PGI) *Sent:* Thursday, November 01, 2018 1:02 PM *To:* flang-dev at lists.flang-compiler.org *Subject:* [Flang-dev] RFC: Adding debug information to LLVM to support Fortran In order to support debugging in the Flang project, work has been done to extend LLVM debug information for the Fortran

using `opt --print-after-all -O3` I see that EarlyCSE is interpreting the call to `ceil` and constant fold: *** IR Dump After Early CSE *** ; Function Attrs: nobuiltin nounwind define i1 @do_test() #2 { Entry: %0 = call fastcc float @ceil(float 0.000000e+00) #6 %1 = call fastcc float @ceil32(float 0.000000e+00) #6 %2 = fcmp fast oeq float 0.000000e+00, %1 ret i1 %2 } So just running `opt

I want to emit a ref parameter (ie i32*) as if it was i32 in debug info, however when I emit it with llvm.debug.declare referring to the parameter register it shows the actual pointer value of the debug register, instead of the value it refers to. This works fine if the llvm.debug.declare points to a local alloca, how can this be and how can I make it work so both show the integer value

When zig updated to llvm 5 we started hitting this assertion: zig: /home/andy/downloads/llvm-project/llvm/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:106: static bool llvm::isa_impl_cl<To, const From*>::doit(const From*) [with To = llvm::Instruction; From = llvm::Value]: Assertion `Val && "isa<> used on a null pointer"' failed. I wonder if however this was caused by an

Can you please open a bug on bugzilla and attach the ir testcase? Your fix doesn't look right (just hiding the assertion failure) On Sep 17, 2017 10:45 AM, "Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > What do you think about this patch? > > --- a/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > +++ b/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/NewGVN.cpp > @@