search for: implicit

Hi, I'm trying to compile openssh2.3.0p1 on aix3.2.5. Can I ignore this list of warning messages? bsd-bindresvport.c: In function `bindresvport_af': bsd-bindresvport.c:94: warning: implicit declaration of function `bind' bsd-rresvport.c: In function `rresvport_af': bsd-rresvport.c:64: warning: implicit declaration of function `bzero' bsd-rresvport.c:82: warning: implicit declaration of function `socket' bsd-rresvport.c:88: warning: implicit declaration of function `bin...

I shouldn't try to do this on Monday morning. Can anyone suggest why the make for R 0.63 is failing for me under Solaris (SunOS 5.6). Paul Gilbert ... creating src/scripts/html2dos creating tests/Makefile creating tests/Examples/Makefile creating src/include/Platform.h R is now configured for sparc-sun-solaris2.6 Source directory: . Installation directory: /usr/local C

If I'm understanding what's going on in this test correctly, what's happening is: * ARMTargetLowering::LowerCall prefers indirect calls when a function is called at least 3 times in minsize * In thumb 1 (without -fno-omit-frame-pointer) we have effectively only 3 callee-saved registers (r4-r6) * The function has three arguments, so those three plus the register we need to hold the

...r0, r5 mov r1, r5 mov r2, r4 blx r6 regalloc dump (attached) shows: Inline spilling tGPR:%9 [80r,152r:0) 0 at 80r weight:3.209746e-03 >From original %3 also spill snippet %8 [152r,232r:0) 0 at 152r weight:2.104167e-03 tBL 14, $noreg, &bar, implicit-def $lr, implicit $sp, implicit killed $r0, implicit killed $r1, implicit killed $r2 folded: 144r tBL 14, $noreg, &"\E0\9C\06\A0\FC\7F", implicit-def $lr, implicit $sp, implicit killed $r0, implicit killed $r1, implicit killed $r2 :: (load 4 from constant-pool) rema...

...r function uECC_shared_secret: NoPHIs, TracksLiveness Constant Pool: cp#0: @foo, align=4 Function Live Ins: $r0 in %0, $r1 in %1, $r2 in %2 0B bb.0.entry: liveins: $r0, $r1, $r2 16B %2:tgpr = COPY $r2 32B %1:tgpr = COPY $r1 48B %0:tgpr = COPY $r0 64B ADJCALLSTACKDOWN 0, 0, 14, $noreg, implicit-def dead $sp, implicit $sp 80B %3:tgpr = tLDRpci %const.0, 14, $noreg :: (load 4 from constant-pool) 96B $r0 = COPY %0:tgpr 112B $r1 = COPY %1:tgpr 128B $r2 = COPY %2:tgpr 144B tBLXr 14, $noreg, %3:tgpr, <regmask $lr $d8 $d9 $d10 $d11 $d12 $d13 $d14 $d15 $q4 $q5 $q6 $q7 $r4 $r5 $r6 $r7...

Hi, My understanding of a "dead" register is a def that is never used. However, when I dump the MI after reg alloc on a simple program I see the following sequence: ADJCALLSTACKDOWN64 0, 0, 0, *implicit-def dead %rsp*, implicit-def dead %eflags, implicit-def dead %ssp, implicit %rsp, implicit %ssp CALL64pcrel32 @foo, <regmask %bh %bl %bp %bpl %bx %ebp %ebx %rbp %rbx %r12 %r13 %r14 %r15 %r12b %r13b %r14b %r15b %r12d %r13d %r14d %r15d %r12w %r13w %r14w %r15w>, *implicit %rsp*, implicit %ssp, i...

...rror: expected declaration specifiers or $(B!F(B...$(B!G(B before $(B!F(BFILE$(B!G (BIn file included from matrix.h:27, from corStruct.c:27: base.h:38:21: error: libintl.h: No such file or directory corStruct.c: In function $(B!F(BcorStruct_factList$(B!G(B: corStruct.c:58: warning: implicit declaration of function $(B!F(Blog$(B!G (BcorStruct.c:58: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function $(B!F(Blog$(B!G (BcorStruct.c:58: warning: implicit declaration of function $(B!F(Bfabs$(B!G (BcorStruct.c:58: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function $(...

...se in this function) ncdf.c:55:18: error: ?NC_INT64? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c:57:18: error: ?NC_UINT64? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c: In function ?R_nc4_varsize?: ncdf.c:69:28: error: ?NC_MAX_DIMS? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c:75:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_inq_varndims? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:78:4: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_strerror? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:84:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_inq_vardimid? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:94:3:...

...file included from colorspace.c:2: /usr/share/R/include/Rinternals.h:770: error: expected declaration specifiers or ?...? before ?FILE? /usr/share/R/include/Rinternals.h:773: error: expected declaration specifiers or ?...? before ?FILE? colorspace.c: In function ?gtrans?: colorspace.c:28: warning: implicit declaration of function ?pow? colorspace.c:28: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ?pow? colorspace.c: In function ?ftrans?: colorspace.c:36: warning: incompatible implicit declaration of built-in function ?pow? colorspace.c: In function ?g?: colorspace.c:92: warning: in...

You are right about your interpretation of "dead". The case here is that RSP is a reserved register and so its liveness isn't really tracked. The "implicit-def dead" is an idiom used to mean that the register (reserved or not) is clobbered. The other implicit uses/defs can come from instruction definitions to indicate that this instruction uses and/or modifies a given register (regardless of its explicit operands), but for reserved registers...

...:27: error: R_ext/Linpack.h: No such file or directory corStruct.c:28: error: 'F77_NAME' declared as function returning a function corStruct.c:28: warning: parameter names (without types) in function declaration corStruct.c: In function 'corStruct_factList': corStruct.c:46: warning: implicit declaration of function 'Calloc' corStruct.c:46: error: expected expression before 'double' corStruct.c:46: warning: assignment makes pointer from integer without a cast corStruct.c:47: error: expected expression before 'double' corStruct.c:47: warning: assignment makes poin...

I have reached a development plateau and now want to integrate some of the rails niceties that I passed over to get the system online. I am fooling with migrations. I am using postgresql. I put in my migration script (at the end of the ''up'' method, the following raw sql code... # set up primary key restratints for PostgreSQL execute ''ALTER TABLE ONLY

...se in this function) ncdf.c:55:18: error: ?NC_INT64? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c:57:18: error: ?NC_UINT64? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c: In function ?R_nc4_varsize?: ncdf.c:69:28: error: ?NC_MAX_DIMS? undeclared (first use in this function) ncdf.c:75:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_inq_varndims? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:78:4: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_strerror? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:84:2: warning: implicit declaration of function ?nc_inq_vardimid? [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] ncdf.c:94:3:...

...lock either, until yesterday LLVM Release 4.0.0 produced the following machine basic block before the pass ARMConstantIslands is run: bb.1.if.end: successors: %bb.3.for.body(0x80000000) liveins: %r4 %r0 = tMOVr %r4, 14, _, debug-location !23 tBL 14, _, $__aeabi_i2d, csr_aapcs, implicit-def dead %lr, implicit %sp, implicit %r0, implicit-def %sp, implicit-def %r0, implicit-def %r1, debug-location !23 tBL 14, _, @sqrt, csr_aapcs, implicit-def dead %lr, implicit %sp, implicit %r0, implicit %r1, implicit-def %sp, implicit-def %r0, implicit-def %r1, debug-location !24 tBL 14, _...

Hi LLVM, I ran into a case where RegAlloc would insert a spill across instruction that had same register for output operand and implicit-def. The effect this had was that spill code would immediately overwrite the output result. Is this the expected result of setting up MyInst this way? In other words, does RegAlloc know to not insert spill in case it sees that output reg is same as one of implicit-def? If this is intended (alw...

Hi Quentin, MyInst is a custom instruction that has implicit-defs of fixed registers. The implicit-defs are seen at the end of Instruction Selection. I'd like to add a report, but I am working on an out-of-tree backend based on 7.0. I can try to help reduce the testcase down. Filed https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=41790 Regards, Kevin On 2019-05...

...if I compile without the patch it compiles, but of cause did'nt work with asterisk. any clue ? /Hans-Henrik Andresen Making in directory src/modules/base ... making dependencies -- modules.cc module_support.cc parameters.cc ff.cc pos.cc p hrasify.cc word.cc postlex.cc phrinfo.cc g++ -c -fno-implicit-templates -O3 -Wall -Wno-non-template-friend -Wno-depre cate d -I../include -I../../../src/include -I../../../../speech_tools/include modules .cc In file included from ../../../../speech_tools/include/ling_class/EST_Relation.h :43, from ../../../../speech_tools/include/EST_wave_aux...

Hi Tom, Thanks a lot for your explanations, now it makes a lot more sense ;) I had a slightly closer look at the R600 packetizer, and the issue is that the third LSHL instruction has both an implicit use and *afterwards* an implicit def of T1_XYZW. The latter def causes the current ScheduleDAGInstrs implementation to ignore the implicit use, thus the ScheduleDAG only contains an anti-dependency from the second to the third LSHL and the packetizer can bundle the instructions. If the order o...

I've looked into that and it's not going to be simple, unfortunately. Here's the original example again: --- name: fred tracksRegLiveness: true body: | bb.0: successors: %bb.1, %bb.2 J2_jumpt undef %p0, %bb.2, implicit-def %pc J2_jump %bb.1, implicit-def %pc bb.1: successors: %bb.3 %r0 = L2_loadruh_io undef %r0, 0 PS_storerhabs 0, killed %r0 J2_jump %bb.3, implicit-def %pc bb.2: successors: %bb.3 PS_storerhabs 0, undef %r0 J2_jump %bb.3, implicit-def %pc...

...ace between libgpl.c32 and hello.c32 seems to trip up make. Here's a 'make --debug' excerpt from the point of failure: -------------------------------------------------- Updating goal targets.... Considering target file 'all'. File 'all' does not exist. Looking for an implicit rule for 'all'. No implicit rule found for 'all'. Considering target file 'hello.c32'. File 'hello.c32' does not exist. Looking for an implicit rule for 'hello.c32'. Trying pattern rule with stem 'hello'. Trying implicit prerequisite ...