Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "islabelty".
Did you mean:
islabel
2010 Feb 10
0
[LLVMdev] [patch] Union Types - work in progress
...ot implemented?
+UnionType *UnionType::get(const Type *type, ...) {
+ va_list ap;
+ std::vector<const llvm::Type*> UnionFields;
+ va_start(ap, type);
Please use smallvector.
+bool UnionType::isValidElementType(const Type *ElemTy) {
+ return !ElemTy->isVoidTy() && !ElemTy->isLabelTy() &&
+ !ElemTy->isMetadataTy() && !isa<FunctionType>(ElemTy);
+}
Isn't there a better predicate somewhere?
+LLVMTypeRef LLVMUnionTypeInContext(LLVMContextRef C, LLVMTypeRef *ElementTypes,
+ unsigned ElementCount) {
+ std::vector<c...
2010 Feb 10
3
[LLVMdev] [patch] Union Types - work in progress
ping...
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually
> passes :)
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote:
>>
>> OK here's the patch for real this
2013 Mar 06
0
[LLVMdev] LangRef/implementation inconsistency: What is the intended constraint on function return types?
...;returntype>‘ is any type except label."
<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#id15>
On the other hand, the actual implementation of
FunctionType::isValidReturnType opines that:
bool FunctionType::isValidReturnType(Type *RetTy) {
return !RetTy->isFunctionTy() && !RetTy->isLabelTy() &&
!RetTy->isMetadataTy();
}
These definitions are mutually incompatible. What is the intended definition?
-- Sean Silva
2012 Sep 26
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
...;s for the fixed parameters.
> - for (unsigned i = 0, e = FTy->getNumParams(); i != e; ++i)
> - Vals.push_back(VE.getValueID(CI.getArgOperand(i))); // fixed param.
> + for (unsigned i = 0, e = FTy->getNumParams(); i != e; ++i) {
> + if (FTy->getParamType(i)->isLabelTy()) {
Is this actually possible?
> + Vals.push_back(VE.getValueID(CI.getArgOperand(i)));
> + } else {
> + PushValue(CI.getArgOperand(i), InstID, Vals, VE); // fixed param.
> + }
> + }
>
> // Emit type/value pairs for varargs params.
> i...
2010 Feb 12
1
[LLVMdev] [patch] Union Types - work in progress
...ector<const llvm::Type*> UnionFields;
> + va_start(ap, type);
>
> Please use smallvector.
>
Done - although I was just copying from what Struct does.
>
> +bool UnionType::isValidElementType(const Type *ElemTy) {
> + return !ElemTy->isVoidTy() && !ElemTy->isLabelTy() &&
> + !ElemTy->isMetadataTy() && !isa<FunctionType>(ElemTy);
> +}
>
> Isn't there a better predicate somewhere?
>
Apparently there is now. Done.
>
> +LLVMTypeRef LLVMUnionTypeInContext(LLVMContextRef C, LLVMTypeRef
> *ElementTypes,
&...
2012 Sep 26
9
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
Hi all,
I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is
one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%.
See this spreadsheet for some rough data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E
The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than
use an "absolute