search for: valists

On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Bram Adams wrote: > One of the obstacles I face when trying to do the complement > (creating new Function and adding call to original in it), is to find > out how to pass the varargs argument of the new Function into the > call to the old Function. Will passing the sbyte** passed to > llvm.va_start do the trick? I think this is the better way to go. If

Hi, I need to find a way to extract all BasicBlocks of a Function (no clones!) into a new Function that has the exact same signature, and adding a call to the new Function in the old one. I tried out lib/ Transforms/Utils/CodeExtractor::ExtractCodeRegion(...), but this one unfortunately checks first to see whether there are any allocas and/ or va_starts and returns a null pointer in that

Hi, Op 2-okt-06, om 21:35 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > I think the easiest way to do this is to do the 'complement' as you > describe, but specially handle the varargs case. Basically you > need to > call va_start in the original function, and pass the valist pointer > down. > This shouldn't be too hard. OK. I've been rethinking my use

On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Bram Adams wrote: > So, I wonder what problems may show up in this algorithm (steps 4, 5 > and 6 seem to be crucial). The vararg-case could be a problem in step > 5, although the va_start intrinsic isn't tied to the surrounding > Function at first sight. There is an implicit dependency between vastart and the function it lives in. Specifically, if you have:

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Bram Adams wrote: > Apparently, the problem is how to "rewind" the vararg-argument back to > its first element when the second loop is reached, as it seems that the > code just continues at position count and beyond, resulting in overflow. > > I'm not sure whether this code snippet is valid ANSI C, and if it is, > one probably shouldn't use

Hi, Op 5-okt-06, om 16:05 heeft Ryan Brown het volgende geschreven: > I don't know if that's valid but what about something like this: > int va_double_sum(int count,...){ > /*declare va_list for each original va_start*/ > /*llvm.va_start for each va_list*/ > /*call extracted_sum(count,va_list1, va_list2, ...)*/ > } That should work, I think, ... Op 5-okt-06, om

Hi, Op 3-okt-06, om 20:48 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > You'd have to change it to something like: > > void foo(int X, ...) { > P = va_start(); > bar(X, P); > } > > void bar(int X, valist P) { > use(P); > } Can the other va_...-intrinsics be used in bar as were the "P = va_start" in bar? The va_start probably is unnecessary

Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Hello folks, > > with the small patch attached below the whole llvm toolchain (llvm & llvm-gcc) > will compile and run under AMD64 Linux in native 64-bit LP64 mode. > > This means that compilation, bytecode management and CWriter output all work > as expected. Of course there is no JIT, and the bytecode interpreter is still > very

Hi, Chris Lattner wrote: > All the non-vastart calls can be anywhere. va_end in particular codegens > to a noop on all targets llvm currently supports, fwiw. > Things go well, except for the following (pathological?) C program: int va_double_sum(int count,...){ int i,sum=0; va_list ap; va_start(ap,count); for(i=0;i<count;i++){ sum+=va_arg(ap,int); } va_end(ap);

On alpha, I am seeing a problem with Emiting va_copy.  valists are structs and allocated by alloca, unlike x86.  EmitBuiltinVACopy is therefore using the second branch of the if (~llvm-convert.cpp:6538) to emit the second argument.  The second argument is the result of an alloca.  TreeToLLVM::Emit is hitting the first assertion (~929). The exp being passed is...

On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Bram Adams wrote: >> You'd have to change it to something like: >> void foo(int X, ...) { >> P = va_start(); >> bar(X, P); >> } >> >> void bar(int X, valist P) { >> use(P); >> } > > Can the other va_...-intrinsics be used in bar as were the "P = > va_start" in bar? The va_start probably is

doc/Makefile.am | 1 doc/swfdec-sections.txt | 3 libswfdec/swfdec_as_array.c | 1 libswfdec/swfdec_as_boolean.c | 2 libswfdec/swfdec_as_internal.h | 4 libswfdec/swfdec_as_native_function.c | 156 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ libswfdec/swfdec_as_native_function.h | 21 ++++ libswfdec/swfdec_as_number.c

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? > I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would > mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction > and just deleting code for handling its Expand and Promote. Are you > anticipating something more

On May 20, 2009, at 1:34 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Eli Friedman > <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Per subject, this patch adding an additional pass to handle vector >> >> operations; the idea is that this allows removing the code from >> >> LegalizeDAG that handles illegal types, which should be a significant

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: >> Can you explain why you chose the approach of using a new pass? >> I pictured removing LegalizeDAG's type legalization code would >> mostly consist of finding all the places that use TLI.getTypeAction