search for: vaajalahti

...that the optimizer does something strange to the sessionEntriesKVO variable (I get strange "unrecognized selector sent to instance..." errors at runtime that has nothing to do with the sessionEntriesKVO). Removing the const keyword (or compiling with -O0) fixes the problem. --- Tatu Vaajalahti Tampere, Finland

On 15.10.2008, at 3.42, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >> I don't know enough C to know for certain if this is a programmer or >> compiler error: > > Hi Tatu, > > With this information it is impossible to tell if it is your fault or > llvm's fault. Please file a bug with a t...

...lib # ln -sf /Developer/usr/local/lib/libLTO.dylib /usr/lib/ libLTO.dylib 5. Fix /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk/Developer/usr # cd /Developer/SDKs/MacOSX10.5.sdk/Developer/usr # mv llvm-gcc-4.2 llvm-gcc-4.2.old # ln -sf /Developer/usr/llvm-gcc-4.2 llvm-gcc-4.2 TIA! --- Tatu Vaajalahti Tampere, Finland

On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: > Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's >> address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc >> with -O or -O0): >> >> >> #include <stdio.h> >> >> static const char test1 = 'x'...

On Oct 14, 2008, at 12:52 PM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > > Hi, > > I don't know enough C to know for certain if this is a programmer or > compiler error: Hi Tatu, With this information it is impossible to tell if it is your fault or llvm's fault. Please file a bug with a testcase that demonstrates the problem, than...

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's > address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc > with -O or -O0): > > > #include <stdio.h> > > static const char test1 = 'x'; > static const char...

Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > On 15.10.2008, at 14.01, Pertti Kellomäki wrote: >> Seems to me that it is perfectly legitimate for the compiler to fold >> the two char constants together. > True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. I don't have the C...

On Oct 21, 2008, at 6:07 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: > Hello all, > > I have replaced the llvm-gcc shipped with the Xcode by the latest > version and I was wondering if I have missed something... (everything > *seems* to work). > Here's what I did: Very cool! Can you please add this to the LLVM FAQ? -Chris

...in one Objective- C pattern (although I don't think anyone actually uses initialized const variables, I was just playing with them to see how compilers put stuff in segments). I do think however that it's bit dangerous to combine static constants across compilation units. --- Tatu Vaajalahti Tampere, Finland

On Oct 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >> Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can >> understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining >> whether >> this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. >> Hopefully >> a language lawyer can ch...

> With this program llvm-gcc -O2 optimizes test2 away even though it's > address is taken in program (gcc-4.2 does not, neither does llvm-gcc > with -O or -O0): I can confirm that test2 is replaced with test1 everywhere using llvm-gcc from svn head. > #include <stdio.h> > > static const char test1 = 'x'; > static const char test2 = 'x'; >

...that the optimizer does something strange to the sessionEntriesKVO variable (I get strange "unrecognized selector sent to instance..." errors at runtime that has nothing to do with the sessionEntriesKVO). Removing the const keyword (or compiling with -O0) fixes the problem. --- Tatu Vaajalahti Tampere, Finland -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20081014/a79afc92/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: a...

On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Mike Stump <mrs at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 16, 2008, at 1:57 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> I strongly doubt we can get away with that. > > Yeah, we agree on that one. I was just thinking about the const case. > >> Here's a more concrete version of the solution I'm proposing: we add a >> new optional marking to constant

Hello, Tatu > Is that correct? I think it's just something to be aware of. Currently we're aggressively merging globals by default. Do you think it will be better to provide special flag to control this behavior? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

> True, but note that it is the address of a variable that is used, not > the value. Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I can understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining whether this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. Hopefully a language lawyer can chime in and say whether this transform is valid or not. Ciao,

On Oct 15, 2008, at 8:28 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 15, 2008, at 6:58 AM, Tatu Vaajalahti wrote: >>> Yes, but why do you think they should get a different address? I >>> can >>> understand that it is surprising that they do, but determining >>> whether >>> this is legal or not requires reading the language standard. >>> Hopefully...