search for: uints

int %nlz10(uint %param.x) { %.t3 = shr uint %param.x, ubyte 1 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t4 = or uint %.t3, %param.x ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t7 = shr uint %.t4, ubyte 2 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %.t8 = or uint %.t7, %.t4 ; <uint> [#uses=2] %.t11 = shr uint %.t8, ubyte 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1]

Hello, guys. I just tested -reg2mem pass to see how it changes my bitcode. E.g., for the following simple C code: ------------------------------------------------------------- int foo() { int i,j; int sum = 0; for (i=0; i<10; i++) { sum += i; for (j=0; j<3; j++) sum += 2; } return sum; } ------------------------------------------------------------- I could get the

Thank you, Clayton. It works now! Our debugger server responds "name:J28;generic:fp;bitsize:32;encoding:uint;format:hex;gcc:60;dwarf:60". And I also set other "generic" attributes like sp, pc, ra, arg1~arg8 to related registers. I dig a little and find llvm dwarf generator uses TargetRegisterInfo::getFrameRegister() to obtain frame base, and uses

Hi, I'm trying to compile and run the following code-snippet: implementation uint %fie(uint* %x) { %e = getelementptr uint* %x, int 1 ; %f = load uint* %e ret uint 3 } int %main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv) { %z = malloc uint, uint 10 %g = call uint %fie(uint* %z) ret int 0 } But the getelementptr instruction gives a segmentation fault. Have I misunderstood its use? I

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is

On Thu, 11 Jan 2007, Schimmel, Mark wrote: > file://docs/LangRef.html#globalvars > > The section describing the definition of global vars discusses that you > can specify an alignment and can also specify a section. Could someone > provide an example that works in gccas in release 1.9 for both defining > which section the var is assigned to and defining the variables >

Thank you, Clayton. This is very helpful. We use the LLDB specific GDB remote extensions, and our debugger server supports "qRegisterInfo" package. "reg 0x3c" is the frame pointer. In the example mentioned above, we have SP = FP - 40 for current call frame. And variable "a" is stored at address (FP + -24) from asm instruction [FP + -24] = R3;; Thus we can conclude

file://docs/LangRef.html#globalvars The section describing the definition of global vars discusses that you can specify an alignment and can also specify a section. Could someone provide an example that works in gccas in release 1.9 for both defining which section the var is assigned to and defining the variables alignment? Also, is there another document that describes how you define sections

On 25.05.2015 21:29, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > Commit 8acaf862dfe switched things over to use TEXCOORD instead of > GENERIC, but did not update the nv30 swtnl draw paths. This teaches the > draw logic about TEXCOORD. > > Among other things, this fixes a crash in demos/arbocclude when using > swtnl. Curiously enough, the point-sprite piglit works without this. > > Signed-off-by:

The only non-empty output file I can find is ops_after_indvar.ll.out: Instruction does not dominate all uses! %idx = cast int %idx to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %tmp. = mul uint %idx, 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1] Instruction does not dominate all uses! %tmp. = mul uint %idx, 4 ; <uint> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = add uint %P,

On 26.05.2015 02:49, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 8:37 PM, Tobias Klausmann > <tobias.johannes.klausmann at mni.thm.de> wrote: >> >> On 25.05.2015 21:29, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >>> Commit 8acaf862dfe switched things over to use TEXCOORD instead of >>> GENERIC, but did not update the nv30 swtnl draw paths. This teaches the >>> draw

Hi! Hmm, ok. I'm using the 1.2 release. Found out that it worked when using long to index getelementptr, but not when using uint, int or ulong. But then I'll try with the CVS code instead. Thank you. , Tobias On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > I tried your test program on the latest CVS code. Everything worked > fine. > > Can you tell me which

Hi Tobias, I tried your test program on the latest CVS code. Everything worked fine. Can you tell me which version of LLVM you're using? Reid. On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 08:26, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to compile and run the following code-snippet: > > implementation > > uint %fie(uint* %x) { > %e = getelementptr uint* %x, int 1 > ;

----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2005 6:31 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Recursive Types using the llvm support library > On Tue, 8 Mar 2005, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>>> An example where something really simple like the

LegalizeDAG.cpp SDOperand SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp(SDOperand Op) { case ISD::RET: Tmp1 = LegalizeOp(Node->getOperand(0)); // Legalize the chain. switch (Node->getNumOperands()) { case 2: // ret val [skipped] case 1: // ret void [skipped] default: { // ret <values> [skipped] Does it imply that a ret instruction may

This is from 'early JIT tests' thread on comp.lang.misc. Given :- int ltst(int x) { int i, j; j=0; for(i=0; i<x; i++)j++; return(j); } This is from the online LLVM compiler. AND It does not seem to optimize it down ! ; ModuleID = '/tmp/webcompile/_24843_0.bc' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32" target endian = little target pointersize = 32 target triple =

hy, here is my speex encoder/decoder .. the sampleRate i use is 16000 and quality,complexity are at 5. can someone take a look in to the code and see if there is something that is making that robot voice here is a link to colored and numbered code, same as below http://barvanjekode.gama.us/temp/1257361243.html thanx. code ----------------------- #include "codec.h"

> Now we got a small but annoying problem. When we get the following C > code to llvm-gcc, > > short test(int x) { > return (short) (x >> 10); > } > > It will generate the following LLVM code: > short %test(int %x) { > %x = cast int %x to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] > %tmp.2 = shr uint %x, ubyte 10 ;

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/Transforms/InstCombine/2004-11-27-SetCCForCastLargerAndConstant.ll: %Y = cast sbyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to