search for: cyclotom

...it assumes both types are unsigned(indicated by > the false arguments). > > Is it correct to assume this? yes, because the behaviour of the original code was undefined. Ciao, Duncan. PS: This is the sort of thing that happens when a function is declared with a prototype such as void *Cyclotomic(void *, long, int) but the function actually has a different prototype, for example void *Cyclotomic(void *, long, long) and the function is called from a place that has only seen the wrong prototype. In short, this is usually a bug in the original code. Confusion between int and long is comm...

...false arguments). >> >> Is it correct to assume this? >> > > yes, because the behaviour of the original code was undefined. > > Ciao, Duncan. > > PS: This is the sort of thing that happens when a function is declared with > a > prototype such as > void *Cyclotomic(void *, long, int) > but the function actually has a different prototype, for example > void *Cyclotomic(void *, long, long) > and the function is called from a place that has only seen the wrong > prototype. > In short, this is usually a bug in the original code. Confusion betwe...

Hi Arushi, > I got this from C code compiled by llvm-gcc. > > There is a consistent prototype for the function > > TypHandle Cyclotomic ( hdRes, n, m ) > TypHandle hdRes; > long n, m; > > the call looks as follows, > hdI = ProdCyc( hdI, Cyclotomic( HdResult, n, 1 ) ); I bet the call occurs before the function is defined. In this case C treats the callee as being a varargs fun...

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 8:35 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Arushi, > > > I got this from C code compiled by llvm-gcc. >> >> There is a consistent prototype for the function >> >> TypHandle Cyclotomic ( hdRes, n, m ) >> TypHandle hdRes; >> long n, m; >> >> the call looks as follows, >> hdI = ProdCyc( hdI, Cyclotomic( HdResult, n, 1 ) ); >> > > I bet the call occurs before the function is defined. In this case C >...

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Arushi, > > > %tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* >> (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* >> (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 >> ; >> <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] >> >> the 3rd parameter is now used in an srem statement. How do we know what >> value is >> used? Does this us...

Unoptimized IR %tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 ; <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] Optimized IR %tmp63 = call%struct.TypHeader* (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic (%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i64 1) nounwind <%struct.T...

Hi Arushi, > I got this from C code compiled by llvm-gcc. > > There is a consistent prototype for the function > > TypHandle Cyclotomic ( hdRes, n, m ) > TypHandle hdRes; > long n, m; I just remembered that Kernighan and Ritchie style declarations like this don't have the semantics you might expect. In particular this is not equivalent to saying TypHandle Cyclotomic ( TypHa...

%tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 ; <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] the 3rd parameter is now used in an srem statement. How do we know what value is used? Does this use decide whether the value is sign extended or zero extended?...

Hi Arushi, > %tmp63 = call %struct.TypHeader* (...)* bitcast (%struct.TypHeader* > (%struct.TypHeader*, i64, i64)* @Cyclotomic to %struct.TypHeader* > (...)*)(%struct.TypHeader* %tmp62, i64 %tmp24, i32 1) nounwind, !dbg !907 ; > <%struct.TypHeader*> [#uses=1] > > the 3rd parameter is now used in an srem statement. How do we know what value is > used? Does this use decide whether the value is sign ext...

Hi Arushi, > For a call like this, > > %tmp6 = call i32 (...)* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8, i8**)* @ssplit to i32 (...)*)(i8* > %tmp599, i32 46, i8** %domainv3) nounwind ; <i32> > > does the 2nd argument get zero extended or sign extended? neither since it does not have the zext or sext attribute. Ciao, Duncan.

...#!/bin/bash echo "Producing executable.bc"; llvm-gcc system.c agcollec.c finfield.c pcpresen.c record.c unknown.c aggroup.c function.c permutat.c scanner.c vecffe.c blister.c gap.c plist.c set.c vector.c coding.c gasman.c polynom.c statemen.c word.c costab.c idents.c range.c string.c cyclotom.c integer.c rational.c eval.c list.c read.c tietze.c -o executable; echo "Producing exec_ln..."; llc -f -stats -regalloc=linearscan executable.bc -o ln.s; gcc ln.s -o exec_ln; echo "Producing exec_ch..."; llc -f -stats -regalloc=chordal executable.bc -o ch.s; gcc ch.s -o...

Hi, For a call like this, %tmp6 = call i32 (...)* bitcast (i32 (i8*, i8, i8**)* @ssplit to i32 (...)*)(i8* %tmp599, i32 46, i8** %domainv3) nounwind ; <i32> does the 2nd argument get zero extended or sign extended? Thanks, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: