search for: kennethuil

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go > there" is taken to mean "if this instruction has no effect other than > a possible trap, the instruction and the trapping behavior *must* be > preserved". What exactly...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >> has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring >> out what t...

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it > required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings.  I > hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it. Here's...

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >>> has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring >&gt...

My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cbindings.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7269 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >>> It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go &...

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go >> there" is taken to mean "if this instruction has no effect other than >> a possible trap, the instruction and the trapping behavior *must* be >> preserved"...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: (A similar esoteric use case is: "which of >> the following two types is larger, 3 x int32 or 2 x {}*? -- i.e. the union >> problem.) The size of a union can be compiled into a...

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >>> To fix that and compile C++ correctly while aggressively >>&gt...

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> To fix that and compile C++ correctly while aggressively >> devirtualizing it, we would need to apply "noalias" to the result of >> placement-new in all cases, even when placement-new is inlined.  More >> generally, when inlining any func...

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Russell Wallace > <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: > > When implementing a language using LLVM as the backend, it is > > necessary to give programs written in that language, access to the C > > standard lib...

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Nick Lewycky<nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > > > 2009/8/28 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >> >> This is by design, of course, (CreateDistinctItem does not return the >> same value given the same caller-visible global state) but I see no >> way to declare a function that: >> >> 1. Returns a distinct item each time it's called, >...

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it.  Here's the revised version of the patch Hi Kenneth! I wouldn't say that I'm the best reviewer, but I've been doing some...

...nd only if the programmer didn't already end the function with an >> explicit return statement', 'if the programmer did write an explicit >> return statement everything after it must be ignored' etc.) >> >> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Russell Wallace >>> <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> When I generate a simple function with a single basic block with two >>>> return instructions, I had expected that if it did an...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 8:10 AM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/11/9 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>: >> >> 1. Conversions to/from other integer types: right now, integer type >> conversions are always explicity specified as either a trunc, a sext, >> or a zext.  Since the size of intp is not known at IR generation time, >> you can't know whether...

...ritical bug, ... when a specialized function is created, all callers are modified. Even if a caller is not needed, to be malformed. My fix includes to examine each of callers to be modified. See also the discussion; http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3757 Takumi 2010/6/5 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>: >> As the number of callsites using the same constant grows, inlining >> gets more expensive while specializing does not - the cost of >> specializing only grows with the number of unique constants combos >> specialized.  So cases where you'd want to sp...

...dded to the end of a function, if and only if the programmer didn't already end the function with an explicit return statement', 'if the programmer did write an explicit return statement everything after it must be ignored' etc.) On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Russell Wallace > <russell.wallace at gmail.com> wrote: >> When I generate a simple function with a single basic block with two >> return instructions, I had expected that if it did anything at all, it >> would...

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > How about this: > > 1. A custom pass run at the beginning that inserts a null check before > every load/store: > > if ( ptr == null ) >  trap; > > Then if any pointers get optimized to null, the if condition becomes a > constant true,and the t...

I'm running into a completely different problem. When I do: opt -load LowerFastInvoke.o -help I get the message: Error opening 'LowerFastInvoke.o': LowerFastInvoke.o: only ET_DYN and ET_EXEC can be loaded? Am I missing something?

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm running into a completely different problem.  When I do: > > opt -load LowerFastInvoke.o -help > > I get the message: > > Error opening 'LowerFastInvoke.o': LowerFastInvoke.o: only ET_DYN and > ET_EXEC can be loaded? > > Am I m...