search for: knowabl

...done) - > for non-fission+type units it might be a bit tricky, because the type units > still need a relocation for the stmt_list* (I'm trying to find where that's > added now... I seem to have lost it), but fission+type units should produce > entirely static type units that are knowable the moment the type is being > emitted so far as I can tell (including the type hash and everything - you > can write the bytes out to the AsmStreamer, etc and forget about them > entirely except to keep the hash to know that you don't need to emit it > again. > > I imagine...

...ld be emitted from the MachineInstr. Is there > a way to do this in the MachineFunctionPass/MachineInstr > infrastructure, or do I need to use something like the MC classes? > As I recall (I haven't played this deep with MachineInstrs for close to a year), it's not necessarily knowable what the length is or the exact bytes that would be emitted since some of them depend on information not known until the final assembly emission pass. An example here is the x86 jmp instruction: the choice between near and long jumps (and hence 2 bytes or 5 bytes on x86-64) is not made until t...

Hi all, Usually if we want to get the called Function we can directly use CallInst->getCalledFunction(), however, today i encounter an unusual CallInst as follows: %call11 = call double (...)* bitcast (double ()* @quantum_frand to double (...)*)() the original C source involve type cast: float u,v; extern double quantum_frand(); u = 2 * quantum_frand() - 1; v = 2 * quantum_frand() -

...be emitted from the MachineInstr. Is there a way to do this in the MachineFunctionPass/MachineInstr infrastructure, or do I need to use something like the MC classes? >> > > As I recall (I haven't played this deep with MachineInstrs for close to a year), it's not necessarily knowable what the length is or the exact bytes that would be emitted since some of them depend on information not known until the final assembly emission pass. An example here is the x86 jmp instruction: the choice between near and long jumps (and hence 2 bytes or 5 bytes on x86-64) is not made until the a...

...re you’re coming from, but I think we’re modeling three different things, and disagreeing about how to clump them together. The three things I see in flight are: > > 1) typical globals that are laid out in some unknown way in the address space. > 2) globals that may be tied to a specific knowable address range due to a limited compilation model (e.g. a deeply embedded core) that fits into an immedaite range (e.g. 0…255, 0…65536, etc). > 3) Immediates that are treated as symbolic for CFI’s perspective (so they can’t just be used as a literal immediate) that are resolved at link time, but...

Dear All, I'm enhancing a MachineFunctionPass that enforces control-flow integrity. One of the things I want to do is to set the alignment of an instruction (by adding NOPs before it in the MachineBasicBlock or by emitting an alignment directive to the assembler) if it causes a specific sequence of bytes to be generated at a specific alignment. The goal is to ensure that sequences of

1. ————— Dan, The reasoning given below for how GVN operates seems odd to me, Poison is an attribute of a value, just like nsw is an attribute of an operation, So when GVN sees a pair of equal values, one of which has an extra attribute, The proper choice for representative value is the one without the attribute, Just like when GVN sees a pair of add operations, one of which has an

...ng from, but I think we’re modeling three > different things, and disagreeing about how to clump them together. The > three things I see in flight are: > > 1) typical globals that are laid out in some unknown way in the address > space. > 2) globals that may be tied to a specific knowable address range due to a > limited compilation model (e.g. a deeply embedded core) that fits into an > immedaite range (e.g. 0…255, 0…65536, etc). > 3) Immediates that are treated as symbolic for CFI’s perspective (so they > can’t just be used as a literal immediate) that are resolved at...

...l enable you to discover different congruences. > > More importantly, given the other purpose of the representatives is to be used during simplification and symbolic evaluation, something we know we *cannot* possibly be optimal at, i do not believe you can assert that there is such an easily knowable best representative. > > There is also no representation we could pick that would avoid all issues for others > > > > Thoughts ? > Comments ? > Questions ? > > The middle one. > > I'm going to be frank and honest: > I don't feel like i have a go...

Hello all, I fairly new to puppet and google groups so I''ll apologize in advance for not conforming to "normal" posting methods. I''ve recently installed puppetmaster on a fresh copy of Ubuntu 10.04LTS and after running: sudo puppet --configprint all, I get a long list of parameters and values echoed back to my shell. My question is where do these parameters and

The simplest solution is probably to just break it out into its own library. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130213/9ab171c0/attachment.html>

Looking through the IR documentation, I have been unable to establish if the size of a pointer value is knowable to an LLVM optimization pass. For an IR->IR optimization pass, is the pass allowed to assume anything about the size of a pointer value? Or is making such an assumption explicitly disallowed? Once target specific information gets introduced, I'm assuming that the size of a pointer va...

On 20 December 2013 22:44, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Looking through the IR documentation, I have been unable to establish if > the size of a pointer value is knowable to an LLVM optimization pass. > For an IR->IR optimization pass, is the pass allowed to assume anything > about the size of a pointer value? Or is making such an assumption > explicitly disallowed? If you look at some LLVM assembly (e.g. emitted by clang -emit-llvm -S your_program.c)...

...database may be administered by a service provider, with users as customers. In such an environment it's not unreasonable to expect that customer data (name, phone number, homedir, etc) should not be shared with other customers. In other cases, the location of the users homedir may not even be knowable before the user is authentication. In these, and many other situations, it is simply presumptuous to suppose that nss passwd information for every user would be available to every other user everywhere. I do agree that PAM changing the username during authentication is a bad idea, I think it wou...

Some people suggested fsh as a way of speeding up a build system which sshes to different hosts to run jobs in parallel. fsh is very handy but it works by keeping open a *single* connection. It won't work if you want to execute more than one command in parallel on the same host. -- Ed Avis <ed at membled.com>

...re modeling three >> different things, and disagreeing about how to clump them together. The >> three things I see in flight are: >> >> 1) typical globals that are laid out in some unknown way in the address >> space. >> 2) globals that may be tied to a specific knowable address range due to a >> limited compilation model (e.g. a deeply embedded core) that fits into an >> immedaite range (e.g. 0…255, 0…65536, etc). >> 3) Immediates that are treated as symbolic for CFI’s perspective (so they >> can’t just be used as a literal immediate) that...

Hello, I'm trying to translate part of Java code in LLVM code. I have some problems with the "opaque type", I think because I did not understand how to use. So, the java code is: int[] ai; .... ai = new int[1]; I am using LLVM API in this way: //I create a pointer of Opaque type, because I don't know yet the array size! OpaqueType* ot = OpaqueType::get(); AllocaInst*

This is about the target specification proposal described in http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TargetSpec.txt At the end of the year I spent a while on this, partly as a foot-wetting exercise for parts of LLVM I wouldn't otherwise look at. I did a partial implementation; enough to understand most of the issues (I hope) and get a clear idea of what would need to be done to phase it in. I

On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 12:00 AM, Mahadevan R <mdevan.foobar at gmail.com> wrote: > 1) > Are the C bindings complete? That is, is there some part of the C++ API > that is not exposed by the C API? Nope, there's still a lot that's not done. Patches are always welcome :) We've got enough in subversion to implement the Kaleidoscope tutorial though. > 2) > Do

Hello all, During discussion of https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/1782 me and Greg uncovered a diametral difference of opinion about the verbosity of NUT programs in general, and of `upsmon -K` (checking for POWERDOWNFLAG during shutdown integration) in particular. To me as a sysadmin type often (in the past at least) having to troubleshoot the tails and ends of systems'