search for: struct_ti

Hi David, Sorry to bother you, but I would like to get some suggestions on your recent work of token type. I’m currently working on changing gc.statepoint to return a token type instead of a i32 type. The reason is that with the current implementation, gc.statepoint could potentially be fed into PHI nodes, and break RewriteStatepointsForGC pass later. Using token type would help us to avoid

> On Dec 1, 2015, at 11:14 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > > While we support 'opaque' types nested within struct types, they are not exactly battle tested: > > $ cat t.ll > %opaque_ty = type opaque > > %struct_ty = type { i32, %opaque_ty } > > define %struct_ty @f(%struct_ty* %p) { > %load = load %struct_ty,

> I dont have a concrete design right now and I am happy to take any other ideas Three ideas come to mind, none of which are perfect: 1) I'm tempted to say that now that we have token type, landingpad should generally produce a token, the pointer should be extracted with the @llvm.eh.exceptionpointer intrinsic instead of an extractvalue, and the selector should likewise be extracted with

It seems a little backwards to me to check the landingpad's type as the first check, since the personality dictates the landingpad's type. That said, yes I see how #4 is expedient in allowing personalities using the two main types to lump themselves into EHPersonality::Unknown. As for supporting selector and exception pointer extraction for landingpad of token type, I think you'll

Hi, I found a difference between Clang and GCC in alias handling. This was with a benchmark where Clang was considerably slower, and in a hot function which does many more loads from the same address due to stores between the uses. In other words, a value is loaded and used, another value is stored, and then the first value is loaded once again before its second use. This happens many times,

> > I would say that GCC is wrong and should also have a version where a > could be equal to b. There is no restrict keyword, so they could be > equal. > This was between a/b and c, not between a and b. Could you explain your opinion a bit more in detail, please? /Jonas > Cheers, > > Matthieu > > Le jeu. 20 sept. 2018 à 16:56, Jonas Paulsson via llvm-dev >