search for: rvalues

Hi All, I'm writing a code generation with my compiler. I read sever example and documentation but I did understand what I make wrong. What I try to do is a compare a local variable with a constant. But when I create a ICMP instruction I get that instruction are not of same type. I'm using llvm by svn repository updated at two week ago. The code that I try to generation is something

...it can be computed from just the DIExpression and location operands. >As stated above, I don't think we can trivially determine this, because (at least for dbg.values) this info was lost already in LLVM IR. Unless we say the dbg.declare / dbg.value distinction is what determines lvalues vs. rvalues. With the proposed operator, it would be trivial to determine lvalue vs rvalue debug values with a set of rules (ignoring any fragment operator, which may appear at the end but does not affect the location type): 1. If the expression is empty, or any location arguments are $noreg => Empty...

On 08/11/2011 02:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Florian, > >> we'd like to be able to check for loss of information in trunc operations in >> our LLVM-based bounded model checker [1]. For this it is important if the >> trunc was on a signed or unsigned integer, so we need nsw and nuw flags for >> this. Would you accept a patch that adds these flags to LLVM (and

Sorry, always end up not replying to the list: The main issue with dealing with next this way is that people adding new uses of next will probably not be using c++0x and therefore won't know it's ambiguous and that it needs to be qualified. There are also two issues with rvalue references and the STL: 1. EquivalenceClasses, in the insert and findLeader functions, it uses map functions

> Yeah, because that decision can only be made much later in LLVM in AsmPrinter/DwarfExpression.cpp. > In DWARF, DW_OP_reg(x) is a register l-value, all others can either be l-values or r-values depending on whether there is a DW_OP_stack_value/DW_OP_implicit* at the end. Yes, it might not be clear but that's what I'm trying to say. Out of the non-empty DWARF locations, register and

Hi Justin, my class is a visitor pattern and I use accept method to go recursive in suboject in my AST. In locals I store AllocaInst pointer. void *visit(var1_init_decl_c *symbol) { llvm::Type *lType; varNames.clear(); varType = ""; symbol->var1_list->accept(*this); /* get a vector contains variable names */ symbol->spec_init->accept(*this); /* Store in

you're not showing enough code. What does accept() do? Based on your description, I strongly suspect that your alloca and constant are not the same type. Remember that alloca returns a pointer type that you must load to get at the actual variable. On Jan 11, 2013 3:28 AM, "Manuele Conti" <manuele.conti at sirius-es.it> wrote: > Hi All, > I'm writing a code

> How crazy would it be for us to start using basic C++'11 language features (but not C++'11 library features) in LLVM: > things like auto | It can make code less readable because of missing types. When compiler can deduce type, it doesn't always mean that human do it easily when reading the code. I'd argue that auto should only be used in cases where the precise type being

...s can I use stimulate(model) to generate values that I can then use to do parametric bootstrap analysis and generate the confidence intervals? Something like this: n<-length(A) niter<-1000 y<-matrix(nrow=n,ncol=niter*2) for (i in 1:niter) { y[,I(i*2-1):I(i*2)]<-simulate(model)[,1] } rvalues<-numeric() for (i in 1:niter) { yboot<-cbind(y[,I(i*2-1)],y[,I(i*2)]) mboot<-lmer(y~A+B+(1|C/D)+(1|E),binomial) rvalues[i]<- attr(lme4::VarCorr(mboot)$E, "stddev")^2/(1*(pi^2)/3 + attr(lme4::VarCorr(mboot)$E, "stddev")^2 + attr(lme4::VarCorr(mboot)$C, "stddev&q...

This is a simple SSA code generation 101 question. If I follow the IR code generation techniques in the Dragon book the statement x = y + z would translate into something like this in SSA/LLVM %0 = add %y, %z %x = %0 Obviously "copy instructions" like %foo = %bar are senseless in SSA since %foo and %bar are immutably fixed to the same value and there is no need for two aliases

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Manuele Conti <manuele.conti at sirius-es.it>wrote: > Hi Justin, > my class is a visitor pattern and I use accept method to go recursive in > suboject in my AST. > In locals I store AllocaInst pointer. > > > void *visit(var1_init_decl_c *symbol) { > llvm::Type *lType; > > varNames.clear(); > varType = "";

On Dec 3, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Ahmed Charles wrote: > Sorry, always end up not replying to the list: > > The main issue with dealing with next this way is that people adding new uses of next will probably not be using c++0x and therefore won't know it's ambiguous and that it needs to be qualified. True. But when this code is compiled under C++0X you get an easy to diagnose, easy

On May 11, 2010, at 8:40 PM, Andrew Sutton wrote: > > What's driving libc++? > > The possibility of being a superior solution. > > I thought "to support Apple applications" from the previous post was sufficient motivation :) Either way, I'm excited about a new library. Plus, it looks a little easier to read (from the tiny amount of code that I've looked

Hi there, just to be sure: http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/WritingYourOwnFunctions says that "The file name is derived from the name of the function that Puppet is trying to run." Is this still true? I ask because I currently write a set of math functions (min,max, plus, minus and so). My first try was to create a math.rb, where I had: module Puppet::Parser::Functions

On Fri, Sep 30, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 08/11/2011 02:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Florian, >> >>> we'd like to be able to check for loss of information in trunc operations in >>> our LLVM-based bounded model checker [1]. For this it is important if the >>> trunc was on a signed or unsigned integer,

The question is, what should C and C++ compilers do with this code? volatile int x; void foo (void) { x; } This question is not totally stupid: embedded systems use code like this when reading a hardware register has a useful side effect (usually clearing the register). It is reasonably clear that a C compiler should load from x and throw away the value. clang and llvm-gcc do

Hi Dan, Thank you for your advice on the build/install. On Jun 11, 2014, at 7:06 PM, Dan Liew <dan at su-root.co.uk> wrote: > Well on many Linux distributions LLVM and Clang are installable as > packages (along with the header files) so for something like the > Kaleidoscope tutorial it isn't necessary to build LLVM and Clang from > source. However you are running OSX

...39;dsyevr'? Especially I am interested about the meaning and handling of error codes 1 and 2. In Lapack.c I only see the reference to the variable info in certain Fortran code: F77_CALL(dsyevr)(jobv, range, uplo, &n, rx, &n, &vl, &vu, &il, &iu, &abstol, &m, rvalues, rz, &n, isuppz, &tmp, &lwork, &itmp, &liwork, &info); if (info != 0) error(_("error code %d from Lapack routine '%s'"), info, "dsyevr"); lwork = (int) tmp; liwork = itmp; work = (double *) R_alloc(lwork, sizeof(double));...

It is my understanding, the alloca memory routines are used for forcing variables to be allocated on the stack frame -- which you would want for source level debugging. When SSA registers are used, LLVM will decide what goes into registers and what will spill over to the stack frame. I want the latter. --w Wayne O. Cochran Assistant Professor Computer Science wcochran at vancouver.wsu.edu

On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:40 AM, Wayne Cochran <wcochran at vancouver.wsu.edu> wrote: > This is a simple SSA code generation 101 question. > > If I follow the IR code generation techniques in the Dragon book the > statement >  x = y + z > would translate into something like this in SSA/LLVM >  %0 = add %y, %z >  %x = %0 > Obviously "copy instructions"