search for: indirectcall

...like no_direct_tail) to the called function declaration and > definition and then mark all the direct call sites in the IR that call > the function as notaill. In addition to that, it seems like we want to > have a way to attach the attribute directly to the call site: > > void (*indirectCall)(int, int, int); > > void foo1(int a, int b) { > (*indirectCall)(a, b, c) __attribute__((notail)); > } I think you're going to want to have the same dichotomy between (1) and (2) at the source level as in the IR. The same issues apply in both cases. > >> >>...

...gt;> declaration and definition and then mark all the direct call >> sites in the IR that call the function as notaill. In addition to >> that, it seems like we want to have a way to attach the attribute >> directly to the call site: >> >> void (*indirectCall)(int, int, int); >> >> void foo1(int a, int b) { >> (*indirectCall)(a, b, c) __attribute__((notail)); >> } > I think you're going to want to have the same dichotomy between > (1) and (2) at the source level as in the IR. The same issues >...

...Feature.mc.constexpr : XPASS Feature.mc.constexprbad : XPASS Feature.mc.constpointer : XPASS Feature.mc.forwardreftest : XPASS Feature.mc.globalvars : XPASS Feature.mc.indirectcall : XPASS Feature.mc.indirectcall2 : XPASS Feature.mc.properties : XPASS Feature.mc.prototype : XPASS Feature.mc.recursivetype : XPASS Feature.mc.simplecalltest...

On 09/23/2015 08:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > > To be clear, this is a debuging aid only? It's not something > required for correctness? I'm somewhat bothered by that because > it seems like it would be a useful

Thanks Vladimir. That's great! Glad you got it working. BTW, the failures you're seeing have been experienced by Chris and I as well. Chris is diligently working on making the LLVM processing more consistent so he track down the problem. A week ago or so, these tests passed at 100%. Reid. On Sun, 2004-06-20 at 15:50, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > In attached file. > > Vladimir

In attached file. Vladimir -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: test2004_06_20.log Type: application/octet-stream Size: 88488 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20040620/98042f01/attachment.obj>

Hi I write a LLVM function pass. The pass will loop the basicblock in the function, check the instruction's type with dyn_cast<switchinst>, print the instruction and the basicblock's successors. I think it is not very complex. My bitcode file is about 30M. My CPU is i7-7700(3.6GHz). It has been running for 60 hours but it is still running. I am not sure whether this is a normal

...: XPASS > > Feature.mc.constexprbad : XPASS > > Feature.mc.constpointer : XPASS > > Feature.mc.forwardreftest : XPASS > > Feature.mc.globalvars : XPASS > > Feature.mc.indirectcall : XPASS > > Feature.mc.indirectcall2 : XPASS > > Feature.mc.properties : XPASS > > Feature.mc.prototype : XPASS > > Feature.mc.recursivetype : XPASS >...