search for: sschiffli

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Stephen Schiffli <sschiffli at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, I have a simple program using aliases to functions, and it seems that > the CallGraph doesn't follow these aliases. Here is the example: > > @alias = alias void ()* @realfunc > > define void @realfunc() { > entry: > ret void > } &gt...

Hello, I have a simple program using aliases to functions, and it seems that the CallGraph doesn't follow these aliases. Here is the example: @alias = alias void ()* @realfunc define void @realfunc() { entry: ret void } define i32 @main() { entry: call void @alias() ret i32 0 } ******* Output of the CallGraph ******* Call graph node <<null

Isn't this effectively the halting problem? Consider the case where block Y is the exit block of main() and block X is the entry block of main(). Jim On Oct 2, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Schiffli <sschiffli at gmail.com> wrote: > Is there any inter-procedural analysis that could tell me if some BasicBlock Y is guaranteed to execute based on my knowledge that BasicBlock X will execute? For example: > > > > extern int x; > > void foo() { } > > int main() { > >...

...t 7:43 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Isn't this effectively the halting problem? Consider the case where block > Y is the exit block of main() and block X is the entry block of main(). > > Jim > > > On Oct 2, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Schiffli <sschiffli at gmail.com> wrote: > > Is there any inter-procedural analysis that could tell me if some > BasicBlock Y is guaranteed to execute based on my knowledge that BasicBlock > X will execute? For example: > > > extern int x; > > void foo() { } > > int main() { > &...

Is there any inter-procedural analysis that could tell me if some BasicBlock Y is guaranteed to execute based on my knowledge that BasicBlock X will execute? For example: extern int x; void foo() { } int main() { if (x) { foo(); } else { foo(); } } I want to be told that the entry block of foo is guaranteed to be

...bach at apple.com> wrote: > >> Isn't this effectively the halting problem? Consider the case where block >> Y is the exit block of main() and block X is the entry block of main(). >> >> Jim >> >> >> On Oct 2, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Stephen Schiffli <sschiffli at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is there any inter-procedural analysis that could tell me if some >> BasicBlock Y is guaranteed to execute based on my knowledge that BasicBlock >> X will execute? For example: >> >> >> extern int x; >> >> void foo...

Hello, I am trying to compile some code to LLVM IR with a simple "__thread int x" but hitting this error: test.cpp:1:1: error: thread-local storage is unsupported for the current target I'm using both the -S and -emit-llvm options on clang, and was expecting to see "@x = thread_local global i32 0" come out of clang. I am curious why clang even cares about this since

Hello all, I was playing with the demo and found that I couldn't use any c++11: warning: 'noexcept' is a keyword in C++11 [-Wc++11-compat] I was wondering if the demo will be updated to LLVM/Clang 3.2 once that finishes, and if it would be possible to enable c++11 support. Thanks, -Stephen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

FYI, it appears that llvm.org is down for everyone. http://www.downforeveryoneorjustme.com/llvm.org -Stephen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121216/fd9797ca/attachment.html>