search for: constantunion

Hello, I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. Hopefully I'm not stepping on Talin's toes by posting this, it's a fairly straightforward adaptation of the code for structs just above. Tim. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336...

...ngRef.html patch looks great. One thing that I notice is that the term 'aggregate' is not defined anywhere. Please add it to the #t_classifications section and change the insert/extractvalue instructions to refer to that type classification instead of enumerating the options. The ConstantUnion ctor or ConstantUnion::get should assert that the constant has type that matches one of the elements of the union. @@ -928,7 +949,7 @@ /// if the elements of the array are all ConstantInt's. bool ConstantArray::isString() const { // Check the element type for i8... - if (!getType()-...

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:51:47AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a > ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. I've been continuing plugging gaps as I find them, which might not be the best way to solve this problem, but it has produced something that seems to do roughly what I expect. I've split it into three broadly independent patches 1: bitcodeUnion.patch. Again...

...looks great. One thing that I notice is that the > term 'aggregate' is not defined anywhere. Please add it to the > #t_classifications section and change the insert/extractvalue instructions > to refer to that type classification instead of enumerating the options. > > The ConstantUnion ctor or ConstantUnion::get should assert that the > constant has type that matches one of the elements of the union. > > @@ -928,7 +949,7 @@ > /// if the elements of the array are all ConstantInt's. > bool ConstantArray::isString() const { > // Check the element type for i...

On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:51:47AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a >> ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. > > I've been continuing plugging gaps as I find them, which might not be > the best way to solve this problem, but it has produced something that > seems to do roughly what I expect. > > I've split it into three broadly independent patches...

...looks great. One thing that I notice is that the > term 'aggregate' is not defined anywhere. Please add it to the > #t_classifications section and change the insert/extractvalue instructions > to refer to that type classification instead of enumerating the options. > > The ConstantUnion ctor or ConstantUnion::get should assert that the > constant has type that matches one of the elements of the union. > > @@ -928,7 +949,7 @@ > /// if the elements of the array are all ConstantInt's. > bool ConstantArray::isString() const { > // Check the element type for i...

OK here's the patch for real this time :) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" > does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, > I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. > > -- > -- Talin

Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. -- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...hing that I notice is that the >> term 'aggregate' is not defined anywhere. Please add it to the >> #t_classifications section and change the insert/extractvalue instructions >> to refer to that type classification instead of enumerating the options. >> >> The ConstantUnion ctor or ConstantUnion::get should assert that the >> constant has type that matches one of the elements of the union. >> >> @@ -928,7 +949,7 @@ >> /// if the elements of the array are all ConstantInt's. >> bool ConstantArray::isString() const { >> // Chec...

Here's the implementation of ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( Two questions: -- Any suggestions as to an existing test I could use as a model for testing this? -- I could also use some advice on what part of the code to work on next (in terms of finishing up union support). -- -- Talin -------------- next pa...

...d! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@0' I just noticed that my union seems to look like an array....is that actually a union or do I have a problem somewhere? The code I use to generate the union is: llvm::Constant* tempUnion = llvm::ConstantUnion::get(object_union_type,llvm::Constant::getNullValue(types[t])); llvm::Value* goodUnion = builder.CreateInsertValue(tempUnion,data,t,"createuniontmp"); object_union_type is union { double, i1 }, and (in this case) t is 0, and types[t] is double On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Eric Ch...

...at a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the code actually forbid this? Either way works for me. > As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for one of the member types, it should be no problem. Right, please propose a syntax and a class to use (ConstantUnion?) for it, -Chris

On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Talin wrote: > Here's the implementation of ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( Seems basically ok, please commit. > > Two questions: > > -- Any suggestions as to an existing test I could use as a model for testing this? IS this what is causing this to be broken? $ cat t.ll @union1 = constant union { i32*, i8 }...

...the term "implicitly converted". Constants.cpp: - assert(Idx->getType()->isInteger(32) && + assert(Idx->getType() == Type::getInt32Ty(Val->getContext()) && You're reverting these changes, please don't. There are a couple instances of this. +void ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(Value *From, Value *To, + Use *U) { + assert(false && "Implement replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant for unions"); +} + Still not implemented? +UnionType *UnionType::get(const Type *type, ...) { + va_list ap;...

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Talin wrote: > > > Here's the implementation of > ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( > > Seems basically ok, please commit. > > I suppose that means that I'll have to send in the info to get commit access then :( > > > Two questions: > > > > -- Any suggestions as to an existing test I could use a...

...39;X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@0' > > I just noticed that my union seems to look like an array....is that > actually a union or do I have a problem somewhere? The code I use to > generate the union is: > > llvm::Constant* tempUnion = > llvm::ConstantUnion::get(object_union_type,llvm::Constant::getNullValue(types[t])); > > llvm::Value* goodUnion = > builder.CreateInsertValue(tempUnion,data,t,"createuniontmp"); > > object_union_type is union { double, i1 }, and (in this case) t is 0, > and types[t] is double > > >...

...sert(Idx->getType() == Type::getInt32Ty(Val->getContext()) && > > You're reverting these changes, please don't. There are a couple instances > of this. > Didn't mean to :) Hope that the train hasn't moved too far while I was editing this. > > +void ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(Value *From, Value *To, > + Use *U) { > + assert(false && "Implement replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant for unions"); > +} > + > > Still not implemented? > > Not in this patch - as you s...

...ion' on function '@0' >> >> I just noticed that my union seems to look like an array....is that >> actually a union or do I have a problem somewhere? The code I use to >> generate the union is: >> >> llvm::Constant* tempUnion = >> >> llvm::ConstantUnion::get(object_union_type,llvm::Constant::getNullValue(types[t])); >> >> llvm::Value* goodUnion = >> builder.CreateInsertValue(tempUnion,data,t,"createuniontmp"); >> >> object_union_type is union { double, i1 }, and (in this case) t is 0, >> and types[t] i...

Quick question - should unions enforce that all member types are unique? I realize that a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the code actually forbid this? As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for one of the member types, it should be no problem. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On

What does this error mean? I'm getting it from an ExecutionEngine::runFunction() call. The function I'm passing it was run through verifyFunction() right before the runFunction() call. I can't seem to find anything that tells me what causes this, only specific (but seemingly unrelated to my problem) cases of it happening. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was