search for: fnty

...sult().} Instruction * Inst; ... Value * Res = Inst; Is the above the right way to do the work? For an other example: <result> = [tail] call [cconv <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#callingconv>] [ret attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#paramattrs>]<ty> [<fnty>*]<fnptrval>(<function args>) [fn attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fnattrs>] According to the LLVM Language reference, CallInst should always have a result. But for void bar(int) types, there will be no return. So the generated IR will be similar to: call void...

..... > Value * Res = Inst; > > Is the above the right way to do the work? > > For an other example: > > <result> = [tail] call [cconv <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#callingconv>] [ret attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#paramattrs>]<ty> [<fnty>*]<fnptrval>(<function args>) [fn attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fnattrs>] > > > According to the LLVM Language reference, CallInst should always have a result. > But for void bar(int) types, there will be no return. So the generated IR will > be simil...

Hao Shen wrote: > Dear all, > > I compiled c program with llvm and found something strange with > function pointer as following small example . > > ------------- In C Code -------------- > float a (int value) { > return value + 1; > }; > > typedef float (*funcptr_t) (int); > > funcptr_t get_ptr(funcptr_t p) { > return p; > } > > float

...2 137) nounwind ///... // use(s) of %0 LLVM's Language Reference has the instruction format for CallInst: <result> = [tail] call [cconv <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#callingconv>] [ret attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#paramattrs>]<ty> [<fnty>*]<fnptrval>(<function args>) [fn attrs <http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#fnattrs>] Does that mean any LLVM IR that has a valid result field will be able to store the result into memory? How about those temps allocated into registers via register allocation? Is there a wa...

On May 16, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Sure, that sounds good. I'd definitely prefer that it be tested before it > goes into CVS. Perhaps adding something to llvm/examples would be a good > way to go. > > One suggestion, you might change the API to be something like this: > > ParseAsmString(const char *, Module *) > > Where the function parses the string and

Dear all, I compiled c program with llvm and found something strange with function pointer as following small example . ------------- In C Code -------------- float a (int value) { return value + 1; }; typedef float (*funcptr_t) (int); funcptr_t get_ptr(funcptr_t p) { return p; } float result = get_ptr(a)(4); ------------- In LLVM Code -------------- %4 = call float (i32)* (float

...an invoke. The intended use of these values is to support "frame introspection"-like functionality for managed languages. # Abstract Syntax The syntax of a call instruction will be changed to look like this: <result> = [tail | musttail] call [cconv] [ret attrs] <ty> [<fnty>*] <fnptrval>(<function args>) [operand_bundle*] [fn attrs] where operand_bundle = tag '('[ value ] (',' value )* ')' value = normal SSA values tag = "< some name >" In other words, after the function arguments we now have an...

...ntrospection"-like functionality > > > for managed languages. > > > # Abstract Syntax > > > The syntax of a call instruction will be changed to look like this: > > > <result> = [tail | musttail] call [cconv] [ret attrs] <ty> > > [<fnty>*] > > > <fnptrval>(<function args>) [operand_bundle*] [fn attrs] > > > where operand_bundle = tag '('[ value ] (',' value )* ')' > > > value = normal SSA values > > > tag = "< some name >" > > &...