search for: constantunions

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. --------------

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > 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

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

OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually passes :) On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > 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

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

I've made all the suggested changes - however, I'm having a bit of problem running the tests. I started "make check" and several hours later it had only made it through about 1/3 of the tests. I'm not sure what the deal is. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK

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:

ping... On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually > passes :) > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: >> >> OK here's the patch for real this

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 part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

The dump from the function I'm running: define %object_structure @0() { entry: ret %object_structure { i8 0, %object_union [double 5.000000e+00, double false] } } the only output I get after the runFunction() call is: UNREACHABLE executed! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@0' I just noticed that my union seems to look like

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Talin wrote: > 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? 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

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 } {

On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Talin wrote: > ping... Hi Talin, sorry for the delay. FWIW, it's usually best to trickle pieces of a feature in and build it up over time, otherwise your patch just gets larger and larger. LangRef.html: + <dt><b>Union constants</b></dt> + <dd>Union constants are represented with notation similar to a structure with + a

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 :(

Alec Benzer wrote: > The dump from the function I'm running: > > define %object_structure @0() { > entry: > ret %object_structure { i8 0, %object_union [double 5.000000e+00, > double false] } > } Unions are almost entirely unimplemented. Sorry. > the only output I get after the runFunction() call is: > > UNREACHABLE executed! > Stack dump: > 0. Running

OK here's a new patch. Additional comments below. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > LangRef.html: > > + <dt><b>Union constants</b></dt> > + <dd>Union constants are represented with notation similar to a structure > with > + a single element - that is, a single typed element

Tthe IRBuilder APIs for unions or unions in general? Either way, I was using unions as a temporary solution for a problem I was too lazy to fully figure out anyway. On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:54 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Alec Benzer wrote: > >> The dump from the function I'm running: >> >> define %object_structure @0() { >> entry:

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