search for: sideeffecting

Hi, Apologies this is a bit lengthy. TLDR: I'm using Dragonegg + LLVM 3.2 and uClibc, and am finding that using the Fast register allocator (i.e. -optimize-regalloc=0) causes miscompilation of setsockopt calls (5-arg system calls). The problem doesn't happen with the default register allocation path selected. It can be worked around by manually simplifying the system call setup

Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect

Hi all, I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is through asm *statements*. I never have inline asm *expressions*, and outputs are always via memory. I D my test looks like

The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). Works on x86. %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", "={ax},0,{di},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64 231, i64 %41) nounwind ; <i64> [#uses=2] -Rich

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >>> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >>>

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > FWIW, I'm very much in favor of having a firm and clear answer to these > questions. > > I also agree that it is an absolute requirement that LLVM have *some* > mechanism for supporting both languages with defined behavior for infinite > loops and a language requirement that all loops

On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:00 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> >>> wrote:

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. > My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference > (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). > Works on x86. > > %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", >

I am in the process of submitting a package to CRAN. R CMD check ran successfully on the package on my local computer, using R version 2.1.1. However, on the computers for CRAN (with version 2.10.0), the following errors occurred: Warning in parse_Rd("./man/predict.Rd", encoding = "unknown") : ./man/predict.Rd:28: unknown macro '\dquote' *** error on file

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically > how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. > So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline > asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is

Hi all, I'm getting rather odd behavior from a call asm inteldialect(). TL;DR is "mov reg, $0" with a "i" constraint on $0 is behaving identical to "mov reg, dword ptr [$0]" and differently from "movl $0, reg" in AT&T syntax. I'm not sure how to get clang to emit an inteldialect, so for this example, I'm emitting llvm and then modifying

Hello Mentors, I am currently finding bug in Local Function related optimization due to which runtime failures are observed in some test cases, as those test cases are containing very large function with recursion and object oriented code so I am not able to find a pattern which is causing failure. So I tried following simple case to understand expected behavior from this optimization. Consider

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:25 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On 7/1/19 1:38 PM, Bill Wendling via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 3:35 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 5:53 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:48 PM James Y

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:08 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On 10/27/2017 02:51 PM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > Personally, I don't like the side effect intrinsic. > > > Understood. I also don't like the fact that it will clutter the IR in many > cases. > > It will pollute all the IR generated by non-C frontends. What most of > these

wine: Unhandled page fault on read access to 0x409ffd80 at address 0x4000ba7c (thread 0009), starting debugger... err:seh:start_debugger Couldn't start debugger ("winedbg --auto 8 32") (2) Read the Wine Developers Guide on how to set up winedbg or another debugger This happens on everything I try run. Note: Still a problem with latest upgrade. It may have more sideeffects than

Hi all, I'm trying to land (a rebased version of) http://llvm.org/D37461 - which should make it possible to handle x86 Intel assembly like mov eax, offset Foo::ptr + 1 (Currently, omitting the +1 works... but offset doesn't work in compound expressions.) I'm having trouble figuring out what inline assembly I can emit into the LLVM IR that will work properly. So far, the closest

On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:44 PM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 1:29 PM James Y Knight <jyknight at google.com> > wrote: > >> I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things >> actually start to get interesting and tricky. >> >> How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 18:41, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > > What version of llvm are you using? This looks like it may be fixed on trunk. After poking at my installation of rust, I'm not entirely sure what version of LLVM it uses. Looking at the GitHub page, it looks like Rust maintains their own copy of llvm and cherry picks commits. The C example was

I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things actually start to get interesting and tricky. How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr into the error blocks? A callbr can specify requirements on where its outputs live. So, what if two callbr, in different branches of code, specify _different_ constraints for the same output, and list the same block as a

Are there any examples for the inline assembler or more complete docs? Questions: * What are the syntax and semantics of constraints? * If I load up specific registers in the inline assembly, will llvm make sure that those registers are unassigned or should I save the registers and restore them? i.e. does llvm try and understand what is going on in the inline assembly, or is it a black box to