search for: byrefer

Two functions in DwarfDebug, addBlockByrefAddress() and addComplexAddress(), contain this snippet of code: // Decode the original location, and use that as the start of the byref // variable's location. const TargetRegisterInfo *RI = Asm->TM.getRegisterInfo(); unsigned Reg = RI->getDwarfRegNum(Location.getReg(), false); DIEBlock *Block = new (DIEValueAllocator) DIEBlock();

Hi there, I have searched what seems like everywhere and was unable to find a .NET wrapper so that I can use speex in VB. I did find a speex.NET.dll but this didn't seem to work on what I needed. I therefore decided I could just use DllImport within VB .NET and create my own unmanaged links to libspeex.dll. With the help of this partial c# code

On Jan 18, 2011, at 7:01 AM, Ken Dyck wrote: > Should addBlockByrefAddress() and addComplexAddress() be doing the same? Yes. Can you prepare a patch ? Thanks, - Devang

Hi all, I have been looking at how to convert by-reference captures into by-copy captures for captured statements and possibly C++ lambdas, and am looking for some feedback on my approach. The motivation for trying to use copy captures is to avoid unnecessary loads that are otherwise required inside the outlined function. This can be important when the outlined function represents the body of a

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=95251 Bug ID: 95251 Summary: vdpau decoder capabilities: not supported Product: Mesa Version: 11.2 Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau Assignee: nouveau at

On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > Hi all, > > I have the same problem. My guess is that when a structure > is passed as a parameter, you cast it into an array for optimization > reasons (less parameters, less stack space). This is not an optimization. This behavior is to be ABI complaint when emitting code for your OS. That said, this is not a very good way to

This is my current understanding of the current situation and the proposed solution. Currently llvm-gcc compiles ----------------------- struct cpp_num { unsigned long high; unsigned long low; char unsignedp; }; void g(unsigned long); void f(struct cpp_num num) { g(num.high + 1); } ---------------------- into ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm getting a crash with some Objective-C code that involves "blocks". Basically, it gets to this "walk_all_functions" call and fails: lower_nested_functions (tree fndecl, bool skip_outermost_fndecl) { ... #ifdef ENABLE_LLVM walk_all_functions (construct_reverse_callgraph, root); propagate_chains (root); #endif ... } The construct_reverse_callgraph calls

Hi Rafael, > 2) add a "byref" mark in the pointer argument. I think you mean "bycopy" or "byval" here. > 3) Have llvm-gcc create a copy before calling the function. Don't forget that the function may be called by code that was not compiled by LLVM. That's why we have to pay attention to the ABI! Solution (3) supposes we have control over both

> > 2) add a "byref" mark in the pointer argument. > > I think you mean "bycopy" or "byval" here. Yes, good catch. > > 3) Have llvm-gcc create a copy before calling the function. > > Don't forget that the function may be called by code that > was not compiled by LLVM. That's why we have to pay attention > to the ABI! Solution

At the LLVM Developers' Meeting in November, I promised to work on isolating a subset of the current test suite that is useful for benchmarking. Having looked at this in more detail, most of the applications and benchmarks in the test suite are useful for benchmarking, and so I think that a better way of phrasing it is that we should construct a list of programs in the test suite that are not

On Sep 2, 2009, at 3:15 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Please merge the three testcases into one file. We added a new > FileCheck tool which allows you to check for the exact sequence of > instructions expected, which also allows the tests to be merged into > one file. > > +/// MemCpyOpt::pointerIsParameter - returns true iff pointer is a > parameter of > +/// C call

On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working > on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html > ) > > I hope that everything is fine now. Hey Jakub, Thanks for working on this again, one more round :) Please merge the three testcases into one

Hello, I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html ) I hope that everything is fine now. -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr2218-3.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7511 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On Jul 5, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > This should probably have these lines: > > // XFAIL: * > // XTARGET: darwin > > -bw > > On Jul 4, 2009, at 11:03 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> This doesn't work with my llvm-g++ on Linux:; My apologies. >> $ llvm-g++ test/FrontendC++/2009-06-30-ByrefBlock.cpp >>

Hi all, I'm using speex through my own python wrapper based on ctypes. In my application I'm forced to process relatively large chunks of audio data (250ms). I was able to supply sufficiently large buffer to the SpeexBits structure and then encode using (code snippet) _speex.speex_bits_reset(byref(self.bits)) for i in range(0, len - self.frameSize, self.frameSize):

Hi all, I have the same problem. My guess is that when a structure is passed as a parameter, you cast it into an array for optimization reasons (less parameters, less stack space). This is, certainly, a reasonable optimization, but makes inter-procedural static analysis more complex. Is there a way to disable it (my guess is that this should be doable by passing some parameter to llvm-gcc)? If

Hi everybody! I recently started using llvm in a project on inferring additional information about pointers based on their types, casts, etc. The following simple example is giving me a headache :): typedef struct { int a; short b, c; int d, e, f; } foo; void bar(foo f) { short s; s = f.b; } int main(void) { foo p; bar(p); } Because llvm doesn't allow structures and arrays

I have an application with acces97, after some weeks trying to execute it, i got it! but now when the i try to do some function it crashes. i think that the problem comes when the application try to call shell, but im not sure. the code when i click on the button is: Public Sub EjecutaAccessOLD(ByRef MiAccess As Object, vista As Integer, Informe, Condici?nWhere As String) Dim strDB As

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8615 Summary: feature request 'update by reference' Product: rsync Version: 3.0.9 Platform: All OS/Version: All Status: NEW Severity: enhancement Priority: P5 Component: core AssignedTo: wayned at samba.org ReportedBy: info at ecsystems.nl