search for: me22

2010/1/15 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>    @foo = constant union { float, i32 } insertvalue union { i32, >> float } undef, i32 4, 0 >>    @bar = constant union { i32, float } insertvalue union { float, >> i32 } undef, i32 4, 1 >> > > Well, the fact that u...

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 a conversion to/from intp truncates or extends. > Now that there are

On 10 Nov., 15:10, me22 <me22... at gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/11/9 Kenneth Uildriks <kenneth... 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.  Sin...

On Monday 15 June 2009 01:32, me22 wrote: > My (possibly faultly) understanding is that intel's has good support > for numerics, presumably through auto-vectorization and such, but only Yes, that's true. > works for intel's architectures and is only excellent on intel chips. That used to be the case, but not...

2009/6/29 Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com>: > > I am trying to create a boxed tagged datatype for a language where it is necessary to resolve the type at runtime. If I were writing an interpreter in C- it would most likely look something like this- > > Is there a standard way for constructing a type like this in LLVM? > Well, you can always ask bitter melon, who

...e this. union { long Int; double float; long* IntRef; } Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? Thanks in advance. --- On Mon, 6/29/09, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > From: me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] simulating c style unions in LLVM > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Monday, June 29, 2009, 11:32 PM > 2009/6/29 Carter Cheng &lt...

On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 10:02 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 May 2010 00:53, Tom van Dijck <llvm at tomvandijck.com> wrote: > > The problem seems to be a much larger issue with the Visual Studio 2010 > C++ > > Compiler and not really related to clang/llvm. The following snippet of > code...

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value > of > > the member to be initialize...

I am trying to create a boxed tagged datatype for a language where it is necessary to resolve the type at runtime. If I were writing an interpreter in C- it would most likely look something like this- struct { unsigned tag; union { long Int; double Float; .... } } Is there a standard way for constructing a type like this in LLVM? Thanks again.

2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value of > the member to be initialized, and the index of which member is being > initialized. Does requiring the index mean that uniquing the union type will have to re-write many of the

2009/6/15 David Greene <dag at cray.com>: > On Monday 15 June 2009 01:32, me22 wrote: >> [...] works for intel's architectures and is only excellent on intel chips. > > That used to be the case, but not so anymore.  Intel compilers generate > just fine code for AMD processors.  Since AMD doesn't produce their > own compilers, it's likely on par w...

On Mar 25, 2010, at 5:23 PM, me22 wrote: > Given that LLVM is already managing the memory and presumably will do > so for the life of your graph processing, could you just use a > boost::directed_graph<llvm::BasicBlock*> instead? Yeah, that was one of the first things I tried: for (Function::iterator i = function....

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 si...

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 09:23, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > int a = INT_MAX, b = 1; > long c = (long)(a + b); > > What is the value of c, on an LP64 target? > > If a and b are promoted to 64-bit, c is 0x0000000080000000. > > In a world where signed add overflow returns undef, c could be any of >  0x0000000000000000 >  ... >

On Fri, 11 May 2007, me22 wrote: > I'm not exactly sure how llvm-g++ works. I think it goes through the > standard gcc sequence (gimple, rtl, and such) but then outputs LLVM > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html), which is the intermediate > representation used by the rest of the chain. To make an LLVM back...

Simply put, it's a pointer-sized integer. I'm blatantly stealing this idea from .NET, where IntPtr (a pointer-sized integer) is a basic type. In my front end, I had considered just using a pointer for intp behind-the-scenes and doing conversion to/from int64 when I wanted to do arithmetic on them, but pointers and integers don't always align the same way. So what I really want is a

me22 wrote: > One of the nicer project names I've seen recently is Alexandria, for a > book database program ( http://alexandria.rubyforge.org/ ). It > unfortunately fails the searchability test, but does brilliantly at > reminding you what it is. Along these lines, is there any mythic...

On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 9:28 PM, Dominic Hamon <dom.hamon at gmail.com> wrote: > There is a thread elsewhere on this mailing list illustrating how > important it is for the maintainers of LLVM to keep LLVM usable in a > commercial environment. As such, I would strongly recommend avoiding > Boost as it has a bad name in some quarters, regardless of its license, > for including

Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like XML? -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 19:19, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > Is there a tool to spit LLVM's IR out in a more machine-friendly syntax like > XML? > It seems like the correct, if unhelpful, answer to that is bitcode, which is far more machine-friendly (by my definition) than XML. What's your eventual goal?