Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "numcontainedti".
Did you mean:
numcontainedtys
2011 Jul 27
1
[LLVMdev] Linking opaque types
On Jul 27, 2011, at 12:41 AM, Talin wrote:
> What do you mean "the linker fails"? Type mismatches should not cause the linker to fail. In any case, this example should link, please provide a minimal example of two .ll files that repros what you're seeing with llvm-link. Thanks,
>
> It's llvm-ld that asserts here:
>
> Assertion failed: (N < NumContainedTys
2011 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Linking opaque types
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:01 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Talin wrote:
>
>
>> If that's true, then it means that we're back to the case where every type
>> has to be fully defined down to the leaf level.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. LLVM is perfectly fine with opaque structs
2011 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] Linking opaque types
On Jul 26, 2011, at 8:11 AM, Talin wrote:
>>
>> If that's true, then it means that we're back to the case where every type has to be fully defined down to the leaf level.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean. LLVM is perfectly fine with opaque structs so long as you don't "deference" them, GEP into them, need their size, etc.
>
> Let me try with
2011 Jan 05
0
[LLVMdev] Printing error with Value objects
Hi.
The platform is an x86 32-bit machine running LLVM 2.4.
I am trying to analyze Alias Analysis queries, and towards this end,
I am trying to print out the "Value"s that form the queries. While
trying to print these queries, llvm hits a segmentation fault. The fault
is due to a Value which does not have its module set properly. I am
using the operator<< to call the
2010 Jan 09
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, attempt 2
On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Talin wrote:
> This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h.
Cool. When proposing an IR extension, it is usually best to start with a LangRef.html patch so that we can discuss the semantics of the extension. Please do write this before you get much farther. I assume that you want unions usable in the same situations as a struct. However, how do "constant
2010 Jan 06
3
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, attempt 2
This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. It also adds code to the
bitcode reader / writer and the assembly parser for the new type, as well as
a tiny .ll test file in test/Assembler. It does not contain any code related
to code generation or type layout - I wanted to see if this much was
acceptable before I proceeded any further.
Unlike my previous patch, in which the Union type was
2010 Jan 11
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, attempt 2
Quick question - should unions enforce that all member types are unique? I
realize that a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the code
actually forbid this?
As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for one
of the member types, it should be no problem.
On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On
2011 Feb 15
3
[LLVMdev] Structure Types and ABI sizes
Hi all,
We're hitting some walls here when generating the correct structure
layout for specific C++ ABI requirements, and I was wondering how much
StructLayout could help.
For instance, the ABI has some complicated rules on the size of
derived classes
(http://www.codesourcery.com/public/cxx-abi/abi.html#class-types) and
LLVM struct type cannot reflect that in full.
Example:
// CHECK: