Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "emitcopi".
Did you mean:
emitcopy
2013 Jan 20
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
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,
2013 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
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)
{
2013 Jan 21
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
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
2013 Jan 18
2
[LLVMdev] Weird volatile propagation ?
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