Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "v4p0struct".
2016 Apr 18
7
LTO and intrinsics mangling
In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example:
%struct.foobar = type { i32 }
declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>)
Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its signature.
When different modules are loaded in LTO configuration with the same LLVMContext, types with the same name from different modules ar...
2016 Apr 18
2
LTO and intrinsics mangling
...vm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> > In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include
> > overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example:
> >
> > %struct.foobar = type { i32 }
> > declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x
> > %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>)
> >
> > Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its
> > signature.
> >
> > When different modules are loaded in LTO configuration with the same
>...
2016 Apr 19
3
LTO and intrinsics mangling
...On 04/18/2016 09:45 AM, Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> In the current mangling scheme for overloaded intrinsics we include
> overloaded type names in the intrinsic name. For example:
>
> %struct.foobar = type { i32 }
> declare <4 x %struct.foobar*> @llvm.masked.load.v4p0struct.foobar(<4 x
> %struct.foobar*>*, i32, <4 x i1>, <4 x %struct.foobar*>)
>
> Verifier checks that an overloaded intrinsic name matches with its
> signature.
>
> When different modules are loaded in LTO configuration with the same
> LLVMContext, types with the sa...
2016 Apr 19
2
LTO and intrinsics mangling
On 04/19/2016 09:35 AM, Ahmed Bougacha wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Philip Reames
> <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/18/2016 10:52 AM, Ahmed Bougacha via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Artur Pilipenko via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>> Does this sound reasonable? Are