search for: field0

...ith such patterns: /* Global Declarations */ /* Structure forward decls */ struct l_structtype_s; /* Typedefs */ typedef struct l_structtype_s l_fixarray_array3[3]; /* problematic declaration */ typedef struct l_structtype_s l_structtype_s; /* Structure contents */ struct l_structtype_s { int field0; }; gcc 4.0.1 will reject this with example.c:7: error: array type has incomplete element type this kind of code was accepted by previous versions of gcc as a fragile extension, but is no longer at least in 4.0.1 . is this known? should I file a bug? regards. PS: This code produces such a pa...

...* Structure forward decls */ > struct l_structtype_s; > > /* Typedefs */ > typedef struct l_structtype_s l_fixarray_array3[3]; /* problematic > declaration */ > typedef struct l_structtype_s l_structtype_s; > > /* Structure contents */ > struct l_structtype_s { > int field0; > }; > > gcc 4.0.1 will reject this with > > example.c:7: error: array type has incomplete element type > > this kind of code was accepted by previous versions of gcc as a fragile > extension, > but is no longer at least in 4.0.1 . > > is this known? should I file...

...producing a more meaningful output: poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u, 4u); poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool1), 4u, 4u); l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i = poolalloc((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u); l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2 = l1_makeList((&l2_GlobalPool1), 0); *(&((struct l_struct_2E_list *)l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i)->field0) = l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2; However, if I am understanding correctly, the first node is being allocated in one pool (that was malloc with the other heuristic) and the rest are being allocated in a differente pool. But why? Why not all the nodes are being allocated in one pool? Also, in your other respo...

...; (*&FPCW)); FPCW=(FPCW&~0x300)|0x200;__asm__("fldcw %0" :: "m" (*&FPCW));} #endif #endif poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u, 4u); ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2 = l1_makeList((&l2_GlobalPool), 8); *(&((struct l_struct_2E_list *)ltmp_2_5)->field0) = l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2; return ((int )/*UNDEF*/0); } ========================== My question is: why is this malloc necessary? ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); Shouldn't be the result a program with this malloc replaced by poolalloc? Should I include a special flag to achieve this? I am using this lin...

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > Hello, > I am trying to run a program optimized with the Pool Allocation, but I am receiving this error: > > ==================== > > *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS INITIALIZED *** > > *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS ALLOCATED FROM *** > > MaxHeapSize = 0.062500KB HeapSizeAtExit = 0.062500KB NOTE: only valid if using > Heuristic=AllPools and no

Hello, I am trying to run a program optimized with the Pool Allocation, but I am receiving this error: ==================== libpoolalloc.so: undefined symbol: _ZTIN4llvm16EquivClassGraphsE -load request ignored. *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS INITIALIZED *** *** 4 DYNAMIC POOLS ALLOCATED FROM *** MaxHeapSize = 0.062500KB HeapSizeAtExit = 0.062500KB NOTE: only valid if using Heuristic=AllPools and no

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > After applying the PA to it, the output is something like this: ... > My question is: why is this malloc necessary? > ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); > Shouldn't be the result a program with this malloc replaced by poolalloc? > Should I include a special flag to achieve this? Ah, sorry, my memory was wrong. The default is to perform the

At least for generating DWARF the scope of of a composite type member should be irrelevant since it will always be nested inside its parent. -- adrian > On Feb 6, 2019, at 10:24 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > A good rough rule of thumb here is "what would/does Clang do?" & it looks (to me, on a very cursory glance) like Clang mostly passes the

Hello, Persuant to feedback, http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2012-August/052927.html here is a new proposal for detailed struct assignment information. Here's the example showing the basic problem: struct bar { char x; float y; double z; }; void copy_bar(struct bar *a, struct bar *b) { *a = *b; } The solution I now propose here is to have front-ends describe the copy using

This patchset applies some minor fixes to renouveau.xml and then unifies the nv30 and nv40 register definitions. nv30 and nv40 are very similar and have the same offsets for the registers they share. The major differences are: 1. Texture setup is different due to full NPOT support on nv40 2. More advanced blending/render targets on nv40 3. NV30 has fixed function registers, which NV40 lacks The

Based on function names and structures, this is some version of GCC :) Any way you can post the entire .ll file? Because it's globalsmodref, it's hard to debug without the other functions, since it goes over all the functions to determine address takenness, etc :) On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Michael Zolotukhin <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Chandler, > > We