search for: emitaggregatecopi

Hi all, The patch below is to fix a problem with unaligned memcpys. This program: void Bork() { int Qux[33] = {0}; } will currently produce this LLVM code on PPC64: @C.0.937 = internal constant [33 x i8] zeroinitializer define void @Bork() { entry: %Qux = alloca [33 x i8] %Qux1 = bitcast [33 x i8]* %Qux to i8* call void @llvm.memcpy.i64( i8* %Qux1, i8* getelementptr ([33 x i8]*

How about this patch then? -bw Index: gcc/llvm-convert.cpp =================================================================== --- gcc/llvm-convert.cpp (revision 43658) +++ gcc/llvm-convert.cpp (working copy) @@ -758,7 +758,7 @@ } -Value *TreeToLLVM::Emit(tree exp, Value *DestLoc) { +Value *TreeToLLVM::Emit(tree exp, Value *DestLoc, unsigned Alignment) {

I doubt you needed to add cfe-dev here. Sorry I hadn't seen this, this seems like an easy and simple deficiency in the IR intrinsic for memcpy. See below. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Arnaud de Grandmaison < arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com> wrote: > define void @test(i16 zeroext %a) nounwind uwtable { > %r.sroa.0 = alloca i16, align 2 > %r.sroa.1 = alloca i16,

As a results of my investigations, the thread is also added to cfe-dev. The context : while porting my company code from the LLVM/Clang releases 3.1 to 3.2, I stumbled on a code size and performance regression. The testcase is : $ cat test.c #include <stdint.h> struct R { uint16_t a; uint16_t b; }; volatile struct R * const addr = (volatile struct R *) 416; void test(uint16_t a) {

On Nov 6, 2007, at 5:45 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > > This patch is to fix a problem on PPC64 where an unaligned memcpy is > generated. The testcase is this: > > $ cat testcase.c > void Qux() { > char Bar[11] = {0}; > } > > What happens is that we produce LLVM code like this: > > call void @llvm.memcpy.i64( i8* %event_list2, i8* getelementptr ([11

On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > >> >> On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>>>> Alternatively I can take the Padding bit into account in the >>>>> StructType::get code somehow. Anyone have a strong opinion? >>>> >>>>

Hi all, This patch is to fix a problem on PPC64 where an unaligned memcpy is generated. The testcase is this: $ cat testcase.c void Qux() { char Bar[11] = {0}; } What happens is that we produce LLVM code like this: call void @llvm.memcpy.i64( i8* %event_list2, i8* getelementptr ([11 x i8]* @C.103.30698, i32 0, i32 0), i64 11, i32 8 ) Notice that it has an 8-byte alignment. However, the Bar

On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:23 AM, Devang Patel wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2008, at 10:08 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >>>> Alternatively I can take the Padding bit into account in the >>>> StructType::get code somehow. Anyone have a strong opinion? >>> >>> Shouldn't it be a map from the gcc type to the padding info? >>> That said, you can get

On Oct 26, 2007, at 11:12 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi all, > > The patch below is to fix a problem with unaligned memcpys. This > program: > > void Bork() { > int Qux[33] = {0}; > } > > will currently produce this LLVM code on PPC64: > > @C.0.937 = internal constant [33 x i8] zeroinitializer > > define void @Bork() { > entry: > %Qux = alloca

On 01/20/2013 10:56 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I doubt you needed to add cfe-dev here. Sorry I hadn't seen this, this > seems like an easy and simple deficiency in the IR intrinsic for > memcpy. See below. > > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Arnaud de Grandmaison > <arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com > <mailto:arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at

Hi All, Using clang+llvm at head, I noticed a weird behaviour with the following reduced testcase : $ cat test.c #include <stdint.h> struct R { uint16_t a; uint16_t b; }; volatile struct R * const addr = (volatile struct R *) 416; void test(uint16_t a) { struct R r = { a, 1 }; *addr = r; } $ clang -O2 -o - -emit-llvm -S -c test.c ; ModuleID = 'test.c' target

Dear LLVMers OK, when I signed up for this mailing list, I asked for a once-daily digest. This is the fourth digest I receive today, and there are about that many each day. The only reason I subscribe to the mailing list is so I can post to it. But I don't need to receive the emails, because I can fully well read them in the archive online, and I certainly don't want to get spammed

Here's issue 48. I'm guessing I'm going to get issue 49 as soon as I hit send... On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing list submissions to > llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > or, via

Hi all, Please review this patch. It's fixing PR3232 comment #8. Function bar from 2008-03-24-BitFiled-And-Alloca.c compiles to: %struct.Key = type { { i32, i32 } } ... define i32 @bar(i64 %key_token2) nounwind { entry: %key_token2_addr = alloca i64 ; <i64*> [#uses=2] %retval = alloca i32 ; <i32*> [#uses=2] %iospec =