search for: isvoidti

Hello Duncan, There is a discussion with Chris Lattner: http://old.nabble.com/Eliminating-the-'void'-type-td33726468.html In the discussion, Chris Lattner suggest Type::getVoidTy() should still exist and return {} for API continuity. If VoidTy and isVoidTy() go away, how do deal with the isVoidTy() function call in LLVM source tree? Another issue is: What should ReturnInst constructor

Hi Dan, >> I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. > > Is this really a good idea? I'm not going to argue at length > about it, but it is worth thinking about. > > The only practical downsides of void are when newcomers take C's > syntax for functions with no arguments a little too literally, or > when they try to create pointers to

Dear all, I'm using IntrinsicLowering class to remove all intrinsics in LLVM byte-code. Unfortunately, I meet several problems: 1. Why I can not get the type of CallInst *CI? !CI->getType()->isVoidTy() is not working and how to solve it? This type information has some impacts with intrinsics such as flt_rounds. 2. Why Intrinsic::vastart and Intrinsic::powi are excluded from

Hi Hao Shen, > 1. Why I can not get the type of CallInst *CI? > !CI->getType()->isVoidTy() is not working and how to solve it? what does "not working" mean? It should work. > 2. Why Intrinsic::vastart and Intrinsic::powi are excluded from > IntrinsicLowering function? > There are no way to lower them at the byte-code level? For vastart, it probably isn't

Hi All, I am facing an issue with CallInst with nested bitcast instruction. I want to check if the return type of a call is void or non-void the below line works well for CallInst without bit cast. *cast<CallInst>(I)->getCalledFunction()->getReturnType()->isVoidTy()* But for Call instructions like *call void bitcast (void (%struct.jpeg_compress_struct.131*, i32)*

Hi, supposing I have a function “foo” like the following: int foo(int a, int b) { ... ... } I want to insert int the LLVM IR a call instructions to a function “bar” that requires the same parameters of foo. So my function foo will become: int foo(int a, int b) { bar(a,b); … ... } I am using the following code: bool ThreadSanitizer::runOnFunction(Function &F) {

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

On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Talin wrote: > ping... Hi Talin, sorry for the delay. FWIW, it's usually best to trickle pieces of a feature in and build it up over time, otherwise your patch just gets larger and larger. LangRef.html: + <dt><b>Union constants</b></dt> + <dd>Union constants are represented with notation similar to a structure with + a

Hello all, I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. Is there anyone working on it? === Overview === The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of 'ret {} {}.' === Further Implementation Details === 1. Deleting VoidTyID 2. Deleting LLVMVoidTypeKind (one-to-one relation between VoidTyID and LLVMVoidTypeKind) 3. Use

On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Talin wrote: > This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. Cool. When proposing an IR extension, it is usually best to start with a LangRef.html patch so that we can discuss the semantics of the extension. Please do write this before you get much farther. I assume that you want unions usable in the same situations as a struct. However, how do "constant

Hi Mitnick, > === Overview === > > The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of > 'ret {} {}.' in a sense the concept is just to delete void and not to replace it with anything in particular. Of course front-ends (clang, dragonegg) need to produce something instead of void, and {} is an example of what they might produce, but they

Hi All, I need to remove successors from every basic block to insert new ones I tried this code, but it doesn't work void RemoveSuccessor(TerminatorInst *TI, unsigned SuccNum) { assert(SuccNum < TI->getNumSuccessors() && "Trying to remove a nonexistant successor!"); // If our old successor block contains any PHI nodes, remove the entry in the //

On 5/7/12 10:36 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Mitnick, > >> === Overview === >> >> The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of >> 'ret {} {}.' > in a sense the concept is just to delete void and not to replace it with > anything in particular. Of course front-ends (clang, dragonegg) need to produce >

Hi Félix, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Félix Cloutier via llvm-dev wrote: > > Assuming that this is a bug, what are the next steps? > > Looks like you already have a very small test case -- have you tried > sticking it in a debugger to see why SCCP thinks removing the call is > okay? > > Alternatively, file a bug at llvm.org/bugs and someone will get to it. The third

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. It also adds code to the bitcode reader / writer and the assembly parser for the new type, as well as a tiny .ll test file in test/Assembler. It does not contain any code related to code generation or type layout - I wanted to see if this much was acceptable before I proceeded any further. Unlike my previous patch, in which the Union type was

Hi all, Sorry for the inconvenient about the previous post. The files were not attached. So I put them here again. I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ============================== ========= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> }

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 time :) >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here's a work

I try to build llvm-gcc-4.2-2.6.source before build and install llvm-2.6, the configure is shown bellow ../llvm-gcc-4.2/configure --prefix=/home/ts/program/ --program-prefix=llvm- --enable-llvm=/home/ts/llvm/llvm-2.6 --enable-languages=c,c++ where, it is the path where llvm-2.6 source is stored, -enable-llvm=/home/ts/llvm/llvm-2.6 the "make" gave error message as bellow:

Hi all, I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ======================================= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> } } Of course in the newly replaced function "int haha(int,