search for: nounwinds

I have three modules: ----------------------------------------------------------------- s1.ll: %0 = type <{ i32, i32 }> define void @s1(%0* byval %myStruct) nounwind { return: ret void } ----------------------------------------------------------------- s2.ll: %0 = type <{ i32, i32 }> define void @s2(%0* byval %myStruct) nounwind { return: ret void }

Hi Xiaoyi, this looks like a bug to me - please file a bug report. Ciao, Duncan. On 01/11/12 04:35, Guo, Xiaoyi wrote: > I have three modules: > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > s1.ll: > > %0 = type <{ i32, i32 }> > > define void @s1(%0* byval %myStruct) nounwind { > return: > ret void > } >

from http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html: nounwind > This function attribute indicates that the function never raises an > exception. If the function does raise an exception, its runtime behavior is > undefined. However, functions marked nounwind may still trap or generate > asynchronous exceptions. Exception handling schemes that are recognized by > LLVM to handle asynchronous

> On Feb 8, 2017, at 12:58 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think this behavior is intended to allow better LTO between C and C++. Consider this kind of code: > > // foo.h > extern "C" int doThing(bool canThrow); > // foo.cpp > int doThing(bool canThrow) { > ... > if (hadError) { > if (canThrow)

Hi All, I have a program that uses C++ STL a lot. To have the source code for STL functions, I undefined "_GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE" in c++config.h. In spite of this, after compilation (via clang) and linking (via llvm-ld), the resulting bitcode contains a few declared functions (with no definitions). My question is: In the scenario where some function definitions are missing in a llvm

Dear All, I am trying to understand the process followed for converting GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR in LLVM-GCC/DragonEgg - more importantly conversion of OpenMP extended GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR. It would be great if anybody points me to some documentation before I my-self delve into the understanding of related source code. -- Cheers -mahesha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hi Duncan, >> #include<stdio.h> >> #include<string.h> >> >> int main(int argc, char** argv){ >> >> char a[8] = "aaaaaaa"; >> char b[8] = "bbbbbbb"; >> >> char *c = (char*) malloc(sizeof(char)*(strlen(a)+strlen(b)+1)); >> memcpy(c, a, strlen(a)); >> memcpy(c + strlen(a), b, strlen(b) + 1); >>

Hi guys, Thanks for the input. However, it seems that the code still produces the wrong output on a Sparc machine. My current llvm_print.bc code is: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; MduleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout =

Hi, I compiled the following code on a Sparc machine, basically it produce different results than a X86 machine. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ; MduleID = '<stdin>' target datalayout =

Hi, When I define an intrinsic function with memory write permission, my assumption is that we can either attach [IntrReadWriteArgMem] or [] to the intrinsic function. Based on the comment of the source code , "IntrReadWriteArgMem - This intrinsic reads and writes only from memory that one of its arguments points to, but may access an unspecified amount." "If no property is set,

Hi Pablo, I can reproduce this with the supplied IR. It is related to the use of __memcpy_chk. As far as I can see it is a bug in lli or the LLVM code generators. Can you please open a bugreport, attaching the LLVM IR. Ciao, Duncan. On 23/01/12 17:00, Pablo Barrio wrote: > Hi Duncan, >>> #include<stdio.h> >>> #include<string.h> >>> >>> int

Dear developers: When I am doing basicblock pass, I meet a bug: there is an iterator "I" in a basicblock, and it is not pointing to the first instruction in this basicblock. However, "I--;" will fail by an assertion. The basic block ("I" is pointing to the second instruction) in test.ll: bb: ; preds = %bb1 %1 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* noalias

On 20 March 2014 02:09, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > I think this is just 2. It uses .eh_frame for unwinding proper. The > only difference in .eh_frame is that there is a personality function > defined. If there is no debug information, it should still be possible to unwind the stack via the saved LR on the stack, no? If there is only line info, you

Hi Nick, > Since I'm busy muddying the waters by changing how exception handling > works, I thought I should ask for clarification on the exact behaviour > of the current 'nounwind' attribute found on functions, calls and invokes. > > I was thinking these would be similar to the AA analysis notes like > "doesNotAccessMemory" which is a provable property

Hello Duncan Sands, >From your reply, what I can understand is that there is no any new OPENMP specific instructions introduced into LLVM IR as a part of DragonEgg project since GCC has already done the job of lowering OpenMP directives into GOMP runtime library calls at LOW GIMPLE IR level. Now, it throws up following questions. 1. Am I correct that DragoEgg should logically supports

On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:41 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 5:45 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >> What isn’t clear to me still is : why shouldn't this be transitive? >> In the example you’re showing, for a caller of f() in bar, what is the >> advantage of knowing that f()

Hi, On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Christine Cheng <clcheng at stanford.edu> wrote: > Hi guys, > > Thanks for the input. However, it seems that the code still produces the > wrong output on a Sparc machine. > > My current llvm_print.bc code is: > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ; MduleID =

Hi, my friends I finally insert the callInst into the hello.bc file.Then I compile the hello.bc to hello.o file and the check.c to check.o file. And I think by link those to .o file togetherI can get the executable ELF file(clang hello.o check.o -o finalfile). But when I link the two objective file, it said "hello.o: In function `main': hello.bc:(.text+0x69): undefined reference to

Hi everyone, Since I'm busy muddying the waters by changing how exception handling works, I thought I should ask for clarification on the exact behaviour of the current 'nounwind' attribute found on functions, calls and invokes. I was thinking these would be similar to the AA analysis notes like "doesNotAccessMemory" which is a provable property of the function or call

Hi, all According to the document "LLVM Alias Analysis Infrastructure", I evaluated the AA performance by using the paramenters '-basicaa -ds-aa -anders-aa'. The source code 'test.c' is listed as follow: //------------=== Source code ===------------// #include<stdlib.h> typedef struct { int x; int y; } Location; Location* getNewLocation(int x, int y) {