Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "structa".
Did you mean:
structs
2012 Feb 07
3
[LLVMdev] Invalid bitcode signature
Sorry, I was being an idiot and was trying to link the wrong file type. Sigh.
Now I have a problem where I merge two modules each containing the same
struct, one opaque and one defined, and it's not merging the two
consistently. I have two, let's say
%"StructA" = type opaque
%"StructB" = type opaque
in one module, and in the other:
%"StructA" = type { i8 }
%"StructB" = type { [0 x i8] }
and when I link the two modules, only one is correctly defined:
%"StructA" = { i8 }
%"StructB" = type opaque
%...
2012 Feb 07
0
[LLVMdev] Invalid bitcode signature
...; Sorry, I was being an idiot and was trying to link the wrong file type. Sigh.
>
> Now I have a problem where I merge two modules each containing the same
> struct, one opaque and one defined, and it's not merging the two
> consistently. I have two, let's say
>
> %"StructA" = type opaque
> %"StructB" = type opaque
>
> in one module, and in the other:
>
> %"StructA" = type { i8 }
> %"StructB" = type { [0 x i8] }
>
> and when I link the two modules, only one is correctly defined:
>
> %"StructA&q...
2012 Feb 04
2
[LLVMdev] Invalid bitcode signature
Bill Wendling-3 wrote:
>
> The error is coming from the bit-code reader. Make sure that you generated
> the file with '-emit-llvm' (i.e., it's not an object file) and that it's
> the binary version of the bit-code file, not the text version.
>
> And, llvm-gcc? really? :-)
>
>
Is there no way that the API can generate valid bitcode?
And no, not really
2012 Feb 04
0
[LLVMdev] Invalid bitcode signature
Hi Fraser,
On 04/02/12 12:09, Fraser Cormack wrote:
>
>
> Bill Wendling-3 wrote:
>>
>> The error is coming from the bit-code reader. Make sure that you generated
>> the file with '-emit-llvm' (i.e., it's not an object file) and that it's
>> the binary version of the bit-code file, not the text version.
>>
>> And, llvm-gcc? really? :-)
2017 Jan 25
4
RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads
...1= load
> void(%struct.A*)*, void(%struct.A*)** %vtable tail call
> void%1(%struct.A* nonnull %a) ret void}!7= !{!"_ZTS1A"}
>
> This works well if the pointer type doesn’t change, but when it
> does, devirtualization might not happen like here:
>
> structA { A();virtualvoidfoo();};structB :
> A{ B();virtualvoidfoo();};voidg(A&
> a){ a.foo(); a.foo();}voidclobber(A&);voidf() { B
> b; clobber(b); g(b);}
>
> The other problem is that when we combine 2 instructions with
> different invaria...
2017 Jan 20
4
RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads
Hi all,
I would like to propose a new way clang would decorate vtable loads in
order to handle devirtualization better.
I've added *llvm-dev* also, because this can start a discussion about
changing invariant.group to just invariant.
PDF version of this RFC can be found here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B72TmzNsY6Z8ZmpOUnB5dDZfSFU/view?usp=sharing
Background:
Initial old design:
2017 Jan 31
0
[cfe-dev] RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads
...ll %a) ret void}!7= !{!"_ZTS1A"}
>>>
>>> This works well if the pointer type doesn’t change,
>>> but when it does, devirtualization might not happen
>>> like here:
>>>
>>> structA { A();virtualvoidfoo();};structB :
>>> A{ B();virtualvoidfoo();};voidg(A&
>>> a){ a.foo(); a.foo();}voidclobber(A&);voidf()
>>> { B b; clobber(b); g(b);}
>>>
>>>...
2017 Jan 26
2
[cfe-dev] RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads
2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>:
> On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <
> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Piotr,
>>
>> I think makes sense. Modulo bitcasts, the invariant is identified by a
>> particular pointer SSA value. Given that you can't sensibly have two
>> nonequivalent
2017 Jan 28
2
[cfe-dev] RFC: Emitting empty invariant group for vtable loads
2017-01-26 15:41 GMT+01:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>:
>
> On 01/26/2017 06:44 AM, Piotr Padlewski wrote:
>
>
>
> 2017-01-26 3:28 GMT+01:00 Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk>:
>
>> On 25 January 2017 at 15:03, Hal Finkel via cfe-dev <
>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Piotr,
>>>
>>> I think