Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "scalarconstantv".
2009 Oct 08
2
[LLVMdev] Some additions to the C bindings
...nstIntGetSExtValue(LLVMValueRef ConstantVal);
I'm not sure about these functions. There really isn't any other way
to get to the value of any other constant, so why do you need this?
/* Operations on composite constants */
@@ -464,6 +479,7 @@
LLVMValueRef LLVMConstVector(LLVMValueRef *ScalarConstantVals, unsigned Size);
/* Constant expressions */
+unsigned LLVMGetConstOpcode(LLVMValueRef ConstantVal);
This seems okay with me, but there really should be an LLVMInstruction
enum defined instead of a raw unsigned value. Could you also add a
LLVMConstExpr that wraps ConstantExpr::get?
+int LLV...
2009 Oct 07
0
[LLVMdev] Some additions to the C bindings
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote:
> My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it
> required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I
> hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk.
>
LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it. Here's the revised version of the patch
2009 Oct 06
3
[LLVMdev] Some additions to the C bindings
My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it
required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I
hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cbindings.patch
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 7269 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
2009 Oct 08
0
[LLVMdev] Some additions to the C bindings
...t.
Specifically, the LLVMBuildExtractValue function requires an int, not
a Constant, to represent the member. I believe that GEP does as well
when applied to a struct.
>
>
> /* Operations on composite constants */
> @@ -464,6 +479,7 @@
> LLVMValueRef LLVMConstVector(LLVMValueRef *ScalarConstantVals, unsigned Size);
>
> /* Constant expressions */
> +unsigned LLVMGetConstOpcode(LLVMValueRef ConstantVal);
>
>
> This seems okay with me, but there really should be an LLVMInstruction
> enum defined instead of a raw unsigned value. Could you also add a
> LLVMConstExpr tha...