search for: extractvalu

...mantics for primitive values. Similar to the values in a database table, any value could be null, even for non-pointer types. For example a boolean variable could be true, false, or null. To model this behaviour, I'm passing an {i1, [type]} around for every numeric type. And using insertvalue / extractvalue all over the place. So when compiling this simple CS example; function long fib (long al_x) long ll_i=0, ll_ret=0, ll_last=0, ll_last2=1 if isnull(al_x) then return al_x end if ll_i=1 do while ll_i<=al_x ll_ret=ll_last+ll_last2 ll_last2=ll_last ll_last=ll_ret ll_i++ loop...

Hi, I'm working with some hand-written LLVM IR which llvm-as doesn't like, giving me the error "Invalid indices for extractvalue". However, as far as I can tell, the code is valid according to the Language Reference Manual. A cut-down example of the kind of code in question is: %struct.s = type {i32,i32,<2 x i32>} define void @entry(i32* %out) { %1 = extractvalue %struct.s {i32 1, i32 2, <2 x i32> <...

Hi Can someone explain to me why we cant use uint64_t for extractvalue and insertvalue indices, while GEP on arrays can have indices of any integer type. Basically if I load an array with UINT_MAX+O (O>=2) elements, I can not extract its last element. Given this restriction I feel we have a bug here (uint64_t is passed as a unsigned). This cant happen because of...

...gt; If I change the code such that the structure is defined with a > 2-element array instead of a 2-element vector: > %struct.s = type {i32,i32,[2 x i32]} > then llvm-as does not report an error, hence why I believe the problem > is specific to accessing vector components. correct, extractvalue doesn't work on vectors, you need to use to use extractelement for them. > According to the Language Reference Manual, I should be able to access > vector components with extractvalue: > > "The 'extractvalue' instruction extracts the value of a member field > from...

Hi, The 'extractvalue' and 'insertvalue' instructions only allow constant indices. If I have an array with variable indices, I need to store it into memory, and then load its sub-elements via GEP. Why could 'extractvalue' not support variable indices like GEP? In general, in which case should sour...

...wrong with the way you're using optimization passes. > The ideal result is probably: It is indeed so: ./opt -std-compile-opts test.bc | ./llvm-dis ; ModuleID = '<stdin>' define fastcc i32 @zsqr({ double, double }* nocapture, { double, double }) nounwind { entry: %2 = extractvalue { double, double } %1, 0 ; <double> [#uses=1] %3 = extractvalue { double, double } %1, 0 ; <double> [#uses=1] %4 = mul double %2, %3 ; <double> [#uses=1] %5 = extractvalue { double, double } %1, 1 ; <double> [#uses=1] %6 = extractvalue { double, double } %1, 1 ; &l...

I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. I have these types: %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } %inner = type { double, i32 } The trouble is that when I have a value of type %outer then proceed to extract the...

...instead. consider the store line: store [500 x i32] %x, [500 x i32]* %x. once I pass this function to opt -O1 -S --verify --verify-each, it generates code like this: define i32 @gl.qi([500 x i32] %x, i32 %i) local_unnamed_addr { entry: %0 = alloca [500 x i32], align 4 %x.fca.0.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 0 %x.fca.1.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 1 %x.fca.2.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 2 %x.fca.3.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 3 %x.fca.4.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 4 %x.fca.5.extract = extractvalue [500 x i32] %x, 5 until 500. I put t...

...<https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#call-instruction>) > allows return values. Since there can potentially be zero to many output > constraints, callbr would now return an aggregate which contains an > element for each output constraint. These values would then be extracted > via extractvalue. With our proposal, the above C example will be > converted to LLVM IR like this: > > define i32 @vogon(i32 %a, i32 %b) { > entry: > %0 = callbr { i32, i32 } asm sideeffect "poetry $0, $1", "=r,=r,X" > (i8* blockaddress(@vogon, %error)) >...

...to be useful for the Language/ISA Matrix that LLVMers care about. At canonical IR level, the intrinsic is useful by eliminating control flow merges and representing divide-by-zero and/or signed overflow in a canonical form: %res = call {i32, i1} @llvm.safe.sdiv.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) %bit = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 1 br i1 %bit, label %trap, label %continue trap: call ... unreachable continue: %div = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 0 The original proposal fails to achieve this because the common case of Java/Go would require a check in the slow-path to differentiate divide-by-z...

...ple, lets consider the simple case of the llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. If I have some sequence (> 1) of llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics, as in the form of: @global = global i32 0 define void @fun() { entry: %res1 = call {i32, i1} @llvm.*.with.overflow.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) %sum1 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 0 %obit1 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 1 store i32 %obit1, i32* @global ... %res2 = call {i32, i1} @llvm.*.with.overflow.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) %sum2 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 0 %obit2 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 1 store i32 %obit2, i32* @global } then I assume...

...lue >> declare float @llvm.creal.c32(c32 %Val) >> declare double @llvm.creal.c64(c64 %Val) > > What are your plans for the reverse? I assume we don't want the only > way to materialize a complex to be via memory so an insertvalue > equivalent (or maybe using insertvalue/extractvalue directly?) and a > literal value would probably be useful. Good points. Originally I put the creal/cimag intrinsics in the proposal when the layout of the complex type was left unspecified. After internal feedback, I changed it to an explicitly-specified layout (real followed by imaginary)....

...be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about what kinds of things you're thinking > about for this? For example, when I have a function returning {i32, i32} and I want to add another i32 to that. If this was a function that simply returns two i32 values, any caller will only use extractvalue on the result to get the seperate values (since the struct as a whole has no meaning). In this case, I can make the function return {i32, i32, i32}, add an extra extractvalue in each caller and be done. If, on the other hand, the struct currently returns a complex number, for example (or any othe...

...rn malloc(bytes); } $ clang -emit-llvm -S -o - t.c | opt -S -mem2reg -simplifycfg -overflow-idiom -simplifycfg -sink -overflow-combine -adce define i8* @malloc_array_1(i64 %n, i64 %size) nounwind uwtable ssp { entry: %0 = call { i64, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i64(i64 %n, i64 %size) %cmp = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %0, 1 br i1 %cmp, label %return, label %if.end if.end: ; preds = %entry %mul = extractvalue { i64, i1 } %0, 0 %call = call i8* @malloc(i64 %mul) br label %return return: ; preds = %entry, %if....

...o saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed struct type. Hope this helps. -Peng On Sunday, December 30, 2012, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue > are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue > getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. > > I have these types: > > %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } > %inner = type { double, i32 } > > The trouble is that when I have a value o...

....org/docs/LangRef.html#call-instruction>) >> allows return values. Since there can potentially be zero to many output >> constraints, callbr would now return an aggregate which contains an >> element for each output constraint. These values would then be extracted >> via extractvalue. With our proposal, the above C example will be >> converted to LLVM IR like this: >> >> define i32 @vogon(i32 %a, i32 %b) { >> entry: >> %0 = callbr { i32, i32 } asm sideeffect "poetry $0, $1", "=r,=r,X" >> (i8* blockaddress(@vogon,...

...> corresponding IR with use of the intrinsics (here I omit types for > conciseness, assuming result type of the safe.sdiv intrinsic being {i32, > i1, i1}) : > > *** C/C-like *** > %div = sdiv %x, %y > > *** Java, Go *** > %divr = call %safe.sdiv(%x, %y) > %div = extractvalue %divr, 0 > %divbyzero_bit = extractvalue %divr, 1 > br i1 %divbyzero_bit, label %throw, label %normal > > *** JavaScript, with "|0" *** > %divr = call %safe.sdiv(%x, %y) > %div = extractvalue %divr, 0 > > *** JavaScript without "|0", Ruby and may...

...dx, %sum call void @side_effect(i1 %to.optimize) %c = icmp ule i8 %idx.inc, %sum br i1 %c, label %loop, label %exit exit: ret void } ``` This happens because `-instcombine` does the following tranform: ``` entry: %uadd = call { i8, i1 } @llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i8(i8 %x, i8 %y) %0 = extractvalue { i8, i1 } %uadd, 0 %e = extractvalue { i8, i1 } %uadd, 1 br i1 %e, label %exit, label %loop.preheader ``` and ScalarEvolution can no longer see through the `extractvalue` of the call to `llvm.uadd.with.overflow.i8`. The right way to fix this depends on the intended purpose of the `llvm.$op....

...llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics. > > If I have some sequence (> 1) of llvm.*.with.overflow.* intrinsics, as in the form of: > > @global = global i32 0 > > define void @fun() { > entry: > %res1 = call {i32, i1} @llvm.*.with.overflow.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) > %sum1 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 0 > %obit1 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 1 > store i32 %obit1, i32* @global > ... > %res2 = call {i32, i1} @llvm.*.with.overflow.i32(i32 %a, i32 %b) > %sum2 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 0 > %obit2 = extractvalue {i32, i1} %res, 1 > store i32 %obit2, i...

...ls? Here's the IR of my relevant functions: define fastcc i8* @"visit_array_aux<`Reference>"(%0, i32) { entry: %2 = load i32* @shadow_stack_depth ; <i32> [#uses=0] br label %start start: ; preds = %entry %3 = extractvalue %0 %0, 1 ; <i32> [#uses=1] %4 = icmp eq i32 %1, %3 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %4, label %pass, label %fail fail: ; preds = %start %5 = icmp sge i32 %1, 0 ; <i1> [#u...