search for: definedness

Hi all, I'm looking for some guidance on how to implement the following GCC behavior using the Clang libaries. For a simple input file I want to get all the macro's which are actually being tested against in that specific file. The following reproduces the behavior: $ cat > test.c << EOF #ifdef AA #define BLABLA #else #define WUTWUT #endif #ifdef WUTWUT #endif #define X 2

Chris do you have a sense for how the definedness of signed overflow in LLVM would play out in the context of bounds check elimination? That is, would it cause lots of failure to eliminate checks that could be seen to be unnecessary at the C level? John On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:08 PM, John...

Hi, I am trying to understand the limitations of the current vectorizer, and came upon these test cases that fail to get vectorized. 1. loop1 below (note the increment by 2) fails to get vectorized because the access a[j+1] is considered to wrap around (the corresponding SCEV doesn't have nsw/nuw set) and hence isStridedPtr() in LoopAccessAnalysis.cpp return false. #define SIZE 100000 void

...os is also included. However, the docs say that defined() is order-dependant (and I don''t know if I *really* understand what that means). I guess the order for node X would be something like stuff from "basenode", then my own stuff (that''s what I''ve seen with definedness of variables) which leads to the nagios::check() in the puppet class not exporting a check (because upon evaluation of that class the nagios class is not loaded yet) 3. Write some nasty shellscripts that ensure the nagios checks are removed from the nagios configfile if a host is missing. How...

Hi, are there anyone have used l_date to format a date object. I have used it as: <%= l_date porject.created_at %> And defineded the "general_fmt_date" in "lang\en.yml" as: general_fmt_date: %%m/%%d/%%Y When run it, the output is: %m/%d/%Y Maybe I had made some mistakes, who can hely me? -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

I was looking through the InstCombine pass, and I was wondering why signed division is not considered a valid operation to combine in the canEvaluateTruncated function. This means, given the following code: %conv = sext i16 %0 to i32 %conv1 = sext i16 %1 to i32 %div = sdiv i32 %conv, %conv1 %conv2 = trunc i32 %div to i16 * Assume %0 and %1 are registers created from simple 16-bit loads. We

On Feb 15, 2009, at 10:08 PM, John Regehr wrote: >> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled >> programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much >> of >> include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or >> someone else writes a proper VRP pass. > > Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking

> Predsimplify is believed to have bugs (it results in miscompiled > programs) and certainly isn't efficient (it was written before much of > include/ADT). Finally, predsimplify is likely to go away once I or > someone else writes a proper VRP pass. Whoever does this, I strongly encourage looking into using (or at least providing optional support for) the Apron library:

...don’t think) this would be a problem if fixed points >> were represented as a native type of arbitrary width and scale >> (similar to how llvm represents arbitrary width integers like i33). > I agree with all of this, with the caveat that we do have to make a decision > about the definedness of the padding bit. But I think it's okay to just assume > that all targets will follow whatever decision we make; if someone blinks and > wants the opposite rule, they get to go add an extra argument to all the intrinsics. Personally I would prefer to see the bit defined as zero, as tha...

What should a well behaved back end do with a load or store with alignment less than the natural alignment of the type? I believe C++ considers such access to be UB. I'm not sure what the IR semantics are. I think my options are: - Delete the operation / use undef - Lower as if it is naturally aligned - Lower via inefficient code that assumes align 1 Thanks, Jon -------------- next part

If we were to create a new type down the line, I think the main features that would distinguish them from other types are the arbitrary width and scale. Saturation can be handled through instructions since saturation really only takes effect after an operation and doesn’t really describe anything about the bits in the resulting type. Signage can similarly be managed through operations and would be

...oblem if fixed points >>>> were represented as a native type of arbitrary width and scale >>>> (similar to how llvm represents arbitrary width integers like i33). >>> I agree with all of this, with the caveat that we do have to make a decision >>> about the definedness of the padding bit. But I think it's okay to just assume >>> that all targets will follow whatever decision we make; if someone blinks and >>> wants the opposite rule, they get to go add an extra argument to all the intrinsics. >> Personally I would prefer to see the bi...