Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "constructalignmentfromint".
2008 Apr 26
2
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...============================
> > --- lib/VMCore/Core.cpp (revision 50213)
> > +++ lib/VMCore/Core.cpp (working copy)
> > +void LLVMSetParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Arg, unsigned align)
> > +{
> > + unwrap<Argument>(Arg)->addAttr(
> > + ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align));
> > +}
> > +
>
> ...
>
> > +void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
> > unsigned align) {
> > + CallSite Call = CallSite(unwrap<Instruction>(Instr));
> > + Call.setParamAttrs(
> > + Call.getParamAttrs...
2008 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...==========================================================
> --- lib/VMCore/Core.cpp (revision 50213)
> +++ lib/VMCore/Core.cpp (working copy)
> +void LLVMSetParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Arg, unsigned align)
> +{
> + unwrap<Argument>(Arg)->addAttr(
> + ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align));
> +}
> +
...
> +void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
> unsigned align) {
> + CallSite Call = CallSite(unwrap<Instruction>(Instr));
> + Call.setParamAttrs(
> + Call.getParamAttrs().addAttr(index,
> + ParamAttr::const...
2008 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...+void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
>>> unsigned align) {
>>> + CallSite Call = CallSite(unwrap<Instruction>(Instr));
>>> + Call.setParamAttrs(
>>> + Call.getParamAttrs().addAttr(index,
>>> + ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align)));
>>> +}
>>
>> If I call this twice with different values, don't I get the bitwise
>> OR of the two constructAlignmentFromInt values? Does PAListPtr
>> provide a better API for this?
>
> You are not allowed to set alignment twice - tried it, an...
2008 Apr 26
2
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...Alignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
> > unsigned align) {
> > + Instruction *I = unwrap<Instruction>(Instr);
> > + CallSite Call = CallSite(I);
> > + Call.setParamAttrs(
> > + Call.getParamAttrs().addAttr(index,
> > + llvm::ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align)));
> > +}
>
> - Unnecessary variable again.
> - The llvm:: prefix is unnecessary because of the using namespace
> llvm; at the top of the file.
>
> This is good. In general, most bindings should be this order of
> complexity or simpler.
>
> — Gordon
>
>...
2008 Apr 28
3
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...lignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
> >>> unsigned align) {
> >>> + CallSite Call = CallSite(unwrap<Instruction>(Instr));
> >>> + Call.setParamAttrs(
> >>> + Call.getParamAttrs().addAttr(index,
> >>> + ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align)));
> >>> +}
> >>
> >> If I call this twice with different values, don't I get the bitwise
> >> OR of the two constructAlignmentFromInt values? Does PAListPtr
> >> provide a better API for this?
> >
> > You are not allowed to set...
2008 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
...on.
> +void LLVMInstrSetAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index,
> unsigned align) {
> + Instruction *I = unwrap<Instruction>(Instr);
> + CallSite Call = CallSite(I);
> + Call.setParamAttrs(
> + Call.getParamAttrs().addAttr(index,
> + llvm::ParamAttr::constructAlignmentFromInt(align)));
> +}
- Unnecessary variable again.
- The llvm:: prefix is unnecessary because of the using namespace
llvm; at the top of the file.
This is good. In general, most bindings should be this order of
complexity or simpler.
— Gordon
2008 Apr 24
2
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
Hi..
Updated so you now set alignment through LLVMInstrSetAlignment.
Anders Johnsen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ParamAttr.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 7420 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080424/cb72b4bb/attachment.patch>
2012 Jan 12
0
[LLVMdev] 64-bit Attributes?
On Jan 12, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
> Hi Kostya,
>
>> How about implementing Attributes as a class with 64-bit integer under the
>> hood?
>> This will protect us from erroneous casts to/from 32-bit unsigned.
>> I have a change half-done but I want to know llvmdev's opinion before
>> proceeding.
> Yes, this sounds like a proper
2012 Jan 12
2
[LLVMdev] 64-bit Attributes?
Hi Kostya,
> How about implementing Attributes as a class with 64-bit integer under the
> hood?
> This will protect us from erroneous casts to/from 32-bit unsigned.
> I have a change half-done but I want to know llvmdev's opinion before
> proceeding.
Yes, this sounds like a proper approach. Which will allow us to switch
over other implementation of attributes, if necessary.
--