search for: inl

...subprograms specify which CU they come from - and the llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes away, so does the associated DISubprogram) I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a possible improvement: During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram definition in another C...

...come from - and the > llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes > away, so does the associated DISubprogram) > > I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a > possible improvement: > > During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram > definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the > CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means > that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram > def...

...come from - and the > llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes > away, so does the associated DISubprogram) > > I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a > possible improvement: > > During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram > definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the > CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means > that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram > def...

...; llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes >> away, so does the associated DISubprogram) >> >> I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a >> possible improvement: >> >> During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram >> definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the >> CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means >> that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprog...

On Mon, Oct 7, 2019 at 12:21 PM 'Sami Tolvanen' via Clang Built Linux <clang-built-linux at googlegroups.com> wrote: > > LLVM's assembler doesn't accept the short form inl (%%dx) instruction, > but instead insists on the output register to be explicitly specified: > > <inline asm>:1:7: error: invalid operand for instruction > inl (%dx) > ^ > LLVM ERROR: Error parsing inline asm > > Use the full form of the inst...

...;getValueType(0)); EVT ShTy = Amt.getValueType(); unsigned NVTBits = NVT.getSizeInBits(); assert(isPowerOf2_32(NVTBits) && "Expanded integer type size not a power of two!"); DebugLoc dl = N->getDebugLoc(); // Get the incoming operand to be shifted. SDValue InL, InH; GetExpandedInteger(N->getOperand(0), InL, InH); SDValue NVBitsNode = DAG.getConstant(NVTBits, ShTy); SDValue Amt2 = DAG.getNode(ISD::SUB, dl, ShTy, NVBitsNode, Amt); SDValue Cmp = DAG.getSetCC(dl, TLI.getSetCCResultType(ShTy), Amt, NVBitsNode, ISD::SET...

...; llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes >> away, so does the associated DISubprogram) >> >> I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a >> possible improvement: >> >> During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram >> definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the >> CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means >> that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprog...

On 10/7/19 9:21 PM, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > LLVM's assembler doesn't accept the short form inl (%%dx) instruction, > but instead insists on the output register to be explicitly specified: > > <inline asm>:1:7: error: invalid operand for instruction > inl (%dx) > ^ > LLVM ERROR: Error parsing inline asm > > Use the full form of the inst...

On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 12:21:29PM -0700, Sami Tolvanen wrote: > LLVM's assembler doesn't accept the short form inl (%%dx) instruction, > but instead insists on the output register to be explicitly specified: > > <inline asm>:1:7: error: invalid operand for instruction > inl (%dx) > ^ > LLVM ERROR: Error parsing inline asm > > Use the full form of the in...

...o the target * "mfcdb" (mfc) or 'never' to not be asked this question again: Fixing the source files... Include/afxctl.rc Include/afxdb.rc Include/afxisapi.rc Include/afxolecl.rc Include/afxolesv.rc Include/afxprint.rc Include/afxres.rc Include/afx.h Include/afx.inl Include/afxadv.h Include/afxcoll.h Include/afxcom_.h Include/afxconv.h Include/afxctl.h Include/afxcview.inl Include/afxdb.h Include/afxdb.inl Include/afxdb_.h Include/afxcmn.h Include/afxdd_.h Include/afxdisp.h Include/afxdlgs.h Include/afxdlgs.inl Include/afxdll_.h...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using > LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers > wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit > shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a

...diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c index 3ec44a4f0e45..55bc58e1dae9 100644 --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c @@ -867,7 +867,7 @@ static void alloc_inout(struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev, int cmd, void **in, int *inl *outlen = MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(qp_2rst_out); *in = kzalloc(*inlen, GFP_KERNEL); *out = kzalloc(*outlen, GFP_KERNEL); - if (!in || !out) + if (!*in || !*out) goto outerr; MLX5_SET(qp_2rst_in, *in, opcode, cmd); @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ static void alloc_inout(struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev, i...

...Product: netfilter/iptables Version: linux-2.6.x Platform: All OS/Version: Ubuntu Status: NEW Severity: blocker Priority: P1 Component: unknown AssignedTo: laforge at netfilter.org ReportedBy: vstinner at inl.fr Hi, I'm trying to setup strict INPUT firewall rules on my computer but I have a problem with IPv6: multicast ICMPv6 packets are dropped because they are detected as invalid. Example: ip6tables -A INPUT -m state --state INVALID -j LOG --log-prefix "Drop INVALID INPUT" ip6ta...

...subprograms specify which CU they come from - and the llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes away, so does the associated DISubprogram) I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a possible improvement: During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram definition in another C...

...> llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes > away, so does the associated DISubprogram) > > > > I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a > possible improvement: > > > > During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram > definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the > CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means > that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram > def...

...nd of #endif directive In file included from /home/khana/mvs6/VC98/mfc/include/afx.h:1953, from /home/khana/mvs6/VC98/mfc/include/afxwin.h:19, from StdAfx.h:22, from DemoMfc.cpp:4: /home/khana/mvs6/VC98/mfc/include/afxcoll.h:1481:23: error: afxcoll.inl: No such file or directory In file included from /home/khana/mvs6/VC98/mfc/include/afxwin.h:19, from StdAfx.h:22, from DemoMfc.cpp:4: /home/khana/mvs6/VC98/mfc/include/afx.h:1971:19: error: afx.inl: No such file or directory In file included from StdAfx.h:22,...

...9C0A7D), main() + 0x1D10 bytes(s), C:\dev\llvm-project\llvm\tools\lli\lli.cpp, line 614 + 0x4D byte(s) 0x00007FF6909C1A29 (0x00007FF690C2C000 0x00007FF690C2FE30 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), invoke_main() + 0x39 bytes(s), d:\agent\_work\5\s\src\vctools\crt\vcstartup\src\startup\exe_common.inl, line 79 0x00007FF6909C190E (0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000 0x0000000000000000), __scrt_common_main_seh() + 0x12E bytes(s), d:\agent\_work\5\s\src\vctools\crt\vcstartup\src\startup\exe_common.inl, line 288 + 0x5 byte(s) 0x00007FF6909C17CE (0x0000000000000000 0x000000000000...

...\Dev\RubyDev\wxruby\samples\minimal> E:\Dev\RubyDev\wxruby\samples\minimal>ruby nothing.rb 08:51:44: Debug: E:\Dev\RubyDev\wx/include\wx/datetime.h(1445): assert "t1.IsVal id() && t2.IsValid()" failed: invalid wxDateTime 08:51:53: Debug: E:\Dev\RubyDev\wx\include\wx/datetime.inl(136): assert "IsValid ()" failed: invalid wxDateTime 08:51:54: Debug: E:\Dev\RubyDev\wx\include\wx/datetime.inl(136): assert "IsValid ()" failed: invalid wxDateTime E:\Dev\RubyDev\wxruby\samples\controls>cd ..\calendar E:\Dev\RubyDev\wxruby\samples\calendar>ruby calenda...

...which CU they come from - and the llvm::Function references the DISubprogram, so if the llvm::Function goes away, so does the associated DISubprogram) > > I'm not sure if this caused a regression, but at least seems to miss a possible improvement: > > During IR linking (for LTO, ThinLTO, etc) these distinct DISubprogram definitions (& their CU link, even if they weren't marked 'distinct', the CU link would cause them to effectively be so) remain separate - this means that inlined versions in one CU don't refer to an existing subprogram definition in another C...

.../vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > index 3ec44a4f0e45..bcb6600c2839 100644 > --- a/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > +++ b/drivers/vdpa/mlx5/net/mlx5_vnet.c > @@ -867,7 +867,7 @@ static void alloc_inout(struct mlx5_vdpa_net *ndev, int cmd, void **in, int *inl > *outlen = MLX5_ST_SZ_BYTES(qp_2rst_out); > *in = kzalloc(*inlen, GFP_KERNEL); > *out = kzalloc(*outlen, GFP_KERNEL); > - if (!in || !out) > + if (!*in || !*out) > goto outerr; > > MLX5_SET(qp_2rst_in, *in, opcode, cmd); > @@ -879,7 +879,7 @@ st...