Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "llvmparser".
Did you mean:
llvm_parser
2010 Nov 09
1
[LLVMdev] uninitialized value warnings: LLVMParser.cpp
These warnings started appearing recently when building LLVM:
llvm[2]: Compiling LLParser.cpp for Release build
/Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function ‘bool llvm::LLParser::ParseBr(llvm::Instruction*&, llvm::LLParser::PerFunctionState&)’:
/Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:3195: warning: ‘Op1’ may be used uninitialized in
2008 Oct 07
2
[LLVMdev] (Function) attributes documentation
...tion attributes, but the syntax spec doesn't.
Additionally, the description uses "function args", whereas the syntax spec uses
"param list". I think that using "arguments" is more correct than "parameters"
for the call instruction [1], though the source (llvmParser.y) also uses these
the wrong way around AFAICS.
This argument list is not so well specified, however. In particular, it is not
so clear if you are allowed (or required?) to specify parameter attributes in
the call instruction. From the parser and the examples I can see that it is
allowed, but I...
2008 Oct 07
0
[LLVMdev] (Function) attributes documentation
...n link also
>
>
> Additionally, the description uses "function args", whereas the
> syntax spec uses
> "param list". I think that using "arguments" is more correct than
> "parameters"
> for the call instruction [1], though the source (llvmParser.y) also
> uses these
> the wrong way around AFAICS.
done.
> This argument list is not so well specified, however. In particular,
> it is not
> so clear if you are allowed (or required?) to specify parameter
> attributes in
> the call instruction. From the parser and the...
2008 Oct 06
0
[LLVMdev] (Function) attributes documentation
Hi Matthijs,
On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> due to the recent changes regarding paramater/function/return type
> attributes,
> I think the documentation around that could use some improvement. In
> particular, I see the following problems:
> * The section "Functions" in the LangRef has a large textual
> description
>
2008 Oct 06
2
[LLVMdev] (Function) attributes documentation
Hi all,
due to the recent changes regarding paramater/function/return type attributes,
I think the documentation around that could use some improvement. In
particular, I see the following problems:
* The section "Functions" in the LangRef has a large textual description
about how it should look, but no definition of syntax, or even a few
examples of the syntax. This makes it very