search for: ficmp

...h broken and unimplemented. They can be > removed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8 release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever forwards compatible bitcode format? Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe?

...an be >> removed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) > > We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8 > release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever forwards > compatible bitcode format? > > Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe? I'm for it. I thought I'd seen something to that effect anyhow. -eric

...can be >> removed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) > > We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8 > release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever > forwards compatible bitcode format? > > Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe? > > > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov > Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

The dump from the function I'm running: define %object_structure @0() { entry: ret %object_structure { i8 0, %object_union [double 5.000000e+00, double false] } } the only output I get after the runFunction() call is: UNREACHABLE executed! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@0' I just noticed that my union seems to look like

...ed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) >> >> We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8 >> release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever forwards >> compatible bitcode format? >> >> Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe? > > I'm for it.  I thought I'd seen something to that effect anyhow. Could you not just keep the IRBuilder instructions for the union, but have it lower it to whatever the necessary IR code is? Unions are nice as you do not need to worry about the size, else you...

Hello > I just noticed that my union seems to look like an array....is that actually > a union or do I have a problem somewhere? Yes. Unions are pretty much broken and unimplemented. They can be removed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

...ed pretty soon (say, after 2.8) >> >> We've never released with unions. Could we remove them for the 2.8 >> release instead of afterwards when they're part of our forever >> forwards compatible bitcode format? >> >> Similar to what we did to the vfcmp and ficmp instructions maybe? >> >> >> >> -- >> With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov >> Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at...