Displaying 13 results from an estimated 13 matches for "r4start".
2012 Nov 02
2
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/10/12 17:03, r4start wrote:
>>
>> On 23/10/12 01:30, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:53 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael...
2012 Nov 07
0
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On 03/11/12 01:37, Michael Spencer wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:41 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 24/10/12 17:03, r4start wrote:
>>> On 23/10/12 01:30, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:53 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>...
2012 Oct 24
2
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On 23/10/12 01:30, Michael Spencer wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:53 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi all.
>>>>
>>>> While compiling next code
>>>> @A = weak unnamed_ad...
2012 Oct 31
0
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On 24/10/12 17:03, r4start wrote:
> On 23/10/12 01:30, Michael Spencer wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:53 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>&g...
2012 Oct 22
0
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 7:53 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all.
>>>
>>> While compiling next code
>>> @A = weak unnamed_addr...
2012 Oct 22
2
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On 20/10/12 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all.
>>
>> While compiling next code
>> @A = weak unnamed_addr constant { i32, i32, i32 } { i32 0, i32 0, i32 0 },
>> section ".data"
>> was discovered that llc ignores weak linkage if we emit it in COFF object....
2012 Feb 27
0
[LLVMdev] Microsoft constructors implementation problem.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:42 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I am working on constructors implementation for MS ABI. Itanium ABI has
> 2 constructor types - base & complete. MS ABI has only 1 type.
> How it works I'll show on example.
> class first {
> public:
> virtual void...
2012 Feb 27
3
[LLVMdev] Microsoft constructors implementation problem.
Hi all.
I am working on constructors implementation for MS ABI. Itanium ABI has
2 constructor types - base & complete. MS ABI has only 1 type.
How it works I'll show on example.
class first {
public:
virtual void g(){}
};
class second : public virtual first {
public :
virtual void g(){}
};
When construct instance of second we will have next code
push 1
lea ecx,[f]
2012 Oct 19
0
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 2:55 AM, r4start <r4start at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> While compiling next code
> @A = weak unnamed_addr constant { i32, i32, i32 } { i32 0, i32 0, i32 0 },
> section ".data"
> was discovered that llc ignores weak linkage if we emit it in COFF object.
> Attached patch sol...
2012 Mar 05
2
[LLVMdev] Microsoft constructors implementation problem.
Hi!
I have another question.
If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be
equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1.
How can I determine who call constructor?
- Dmitry.
2012 Mar 08
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Microsoft constructors implementation problem.
On Mar 5, 2012, at 12:40 AM, r4start wrote:
> I have another question.
> If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be
> equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1.
The rule isn't "Is this constructor being called from another constructor?",
it's "Is this constructor being used to initializ...
2012 Oct 19
2
[LLVMdev] Section specialization & COFF.
Hi all.
While compiling next code
@A = weak unnamed_addr constant { i32, i32, i32 } { i32 0, i32 0, i32 0
}, section ".data"
was discovered that llc ignores weak linkage if we emit it in COFF object.
Attached patch solves this problem, please review.
I found some similar tests in test/Objects/Inputs. Should I do something
like trivial.ll checking or there is a better way
to check
2012 Oct 02
1
[LLVMdev] Unreachable block eliminate problem.
Hi all!
I have problem with eliminating of unreachable basic block in function code.
This block must be called from other place through address in global
constant, it has no predecessors.
When I build object file this address = 1.
I found that 1 inserts only if block was elimanted.
Is it normal, when block eliminates even if some constant have address
of this block?
Can I disable this