search for: intrinsincs

This patch removes FLAC__lpc_restore_signal_16_intrin_sse2(). It's faster than C code, but not faster than MMX-accelerated ASM functions. It's also slower than the new SSE4.1 functions that were added by the previous patch. So this function wasn't very useful before, and now it's even less useful. I don't see a reason to keep it. -------------- next part -------------- A

...so it seems (at least to me) to be in good condition. > It also seems that other project (Analyzer ...) require some sort of > prebuild steps (Intrinsics.h not found) ... Could you send me a > commad that would generate all those prerequisites (or at least tell > me where to look:) ). Intrinsincs.h is in include/llvm. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hi all, currently we lower the __builtin_setjmp/__builtin_longjmp intrinsincs to SjLj exception style intrinsics. For ARM on non-Darwin, they end up as nops, breaking Ruby. This leads to the question of what the defined semantics of them is. (a) Are they supposed to be compatible with libc? PPC disagrees in comments. (b) Are they supposed to be compatible with GCC? If not...

Folks, So, I think we kind of agree that some named registers could be implemented, and that it should be an intrinsic that passes the name of the register down. This C code: register unsigned long current_stack_pointer asm("sp"); unsigned long get_stack_pointer_addr() { return current_stack_pointer; } void set_stack_pointer_addr(unsigned long addr) { current_stack_pointer = addr;

...milar to named register, but with the additional benefit that the compiler is free to choose the register, while in the second case, the user does. It also would work with all standard C code already available using the `register` keyword. But that's for another discussion... > (2) Provide intrinsincs to read/write a given register. That's the idea right now. Just that. No guarantees. Aperture Labs kind of science (not Black Mesa). cheers, --renato

hi! I would like to know if it is feasible to use the dragon egg gcc plugin to automatically convert fortran code to c. Having found that it is possible to output llvm byte code back to c (at least something like this gave me this impression/hope: llc -march=c -o test.c) I am hoping to use dragon egg to generate the byte code from fortran 90 which than output to c. Does this seem feasible at