search for: voidti

Hi Mitnick, > === Overview === > > The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of > 'ret {} {}.' in a sense the concept is just to delete void and not to replace it with anything in particular. Of course front-ends (clang, dragonegg) need to produce something instead of void, and {} is an example of what they might produce, but they

Hello all, I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. Is there anyone working on it? === Overview === The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of 'ret {} {}.' === Further Implementation Details === 1. Deleting VoidTyID 2. Deleting LLVMVoidTypeKind (one-to-one relation between VoidTyID and LLVMVoidTypeKind) 3. Use

On 5/7/12 10:36 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Mitnick, > >> === Overview === >> >> The general concept is to replaced void with {}. And 'ret void' is a synonym of >> 'ret {} {}.' > in a sense the concept is just to delete void and not to replace it with > anything in particular. Of course front-ends (clang, dragonegg) need to produce >

Thank you Chris, for your hint, but I am still too stupid. I tried two versions asm_arguments.push_back(Type::VoidTy); FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, asm_arguments, false); Alternatively FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, std::vector<const Type*>(), false); . Can you give me a snippet of example code, or somebody else?

On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Thank you Chris, > for your hint, but I am still too stupid. I tried two versions > > asm_arguments.push_back(Type::VoidTy); > FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, > asm_arguments, false); > > Alternatively > > FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, >

Hi, both versions are working: FunctionType *asm_Ftype = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, std::vector<const Type*>(), false); InlineAsm* Iasm = InlineAsm::get(asm_Ftype,"isync","~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}",true); How can I insert this InlineAsm, because it is no instruction and this way it will not work: Instruction *pi = bi;

Hi, I got a problem when I am trying to insert a call function with pointer arguments. The function C proto-type is the following, void stat_func(char *); >ConstantArray *Cstr = dyn_cast<ConstantArray>(gI->getInitializer()); ...... >Function *exFunc = M->getOrInsertFunction("stat_func", Type::VoidTy, PointerType::get(Type::SByteTy),0); >std::vector<Value*>

Hi, I' am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the new produced InlineAsm? Thanks for help, Michael for (BasicBlock::iterator bi = i->begin(), be = i->end(); bi != be; ++bi){ std::vector<const Type*> asm_arguments;

On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Hi, > I’ am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which > FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? > If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the > new produced InlineAsm? > > Thanks for help Inline asm works like a "callee". So for: call void asm sideeffect

Hello Duncan, There is a discussion with Chris Lattner: http://old.nabble.com/Eliminating-the-'void'-type-td33726468.html In the discussion, Chris Lattner suggest Type::getVoidTy() should still exist and return {} for API continuity. If VoidTy and isVoidTy() go away, how do deal with the isVoidTy() function call in LLVM source tree? Another issue is: What should ReturnInst constructor

I recently began hacking around with my first LLVM pass. The big picture is that I would like to insert function calls for each instruction type, and pass some parameters based on the instruction type. Then I will link the output to some C file that implements those functions. Things were going well until I started trying to make function calls with a pointer as a parameter. For example, I would

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Any ideas what could be wrong? > > Sorry for the delay, please try this tarball: > http://nondot.org/sabre/2006-03-02-llvm-gcc-4.tar.gz Actually, do to a recent change in CVS, this tarball will probably not work anymore. Please apply the attached (small) patch on top of it in the gcc directory. Worth noting, this front-end only works

Hello Chris, The general concept is to replace void with {}. Void is a weird type in > that it is only allowed as the return value of functions and as the type of > instructions like store. It seems better (though also not particularly > high priority) to eliminate it to make the type system more consistent. > > -Chris > I also noticed a sentence "We can even make

Hi Dan, >> I am willing to do "eliminating the void type" project. > > Is this really a good idea? I'm not going to argue at length > about it, but it is worth thinking about. > > The only practical downsides of void are when newcomers take C's > syntax for functions with no arguments a little too literally, or > when they try to create pointers to

On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Scott Ricketts <sricketts at maxentric.com> wrote: > Where load_fcall is build using a call to Module::getOrInsertFunction > as in the example here: > > http://wiki.llvm.org/HowTo:_Insert_a_function_call > > My question is, what do I pass as the argument type for P above? The > following seems to work, as long as there are no floating

On Apr 22, 2012, at 3:44 AM, Lyu Mitnick wrote: > Hello Chris, > > The general concept is to replace void with {}. Void is a weird type in that it is only allowed as the return value of functions and as the type of instructions like store. It seems better (though also not particularly high priority) to eliminate it to make the type system more consistent. > > -Chris > >

On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >>> The instructions seem to have one path wrong. It says to get: >> >> I'll put together a tarball today. That will be easier than dealing with >> a patch, and it will include a bunch of bugfixes since the previous email. > Further into process, I get this error: > In file included from

Hola LLVMers, I'm debugging through some strangeness that I'm seeing on X64 on windows with LLVM2.2. I had to change the code so that it would engage the x64 target machine on windows builds, but I've otherwise left LLVM 2.2 alone. The basic idea is that I've got a function bar which is compiled by VStudio and I'm creating another function foo via LLVM JIT which is going

Hi, peter green wrote: > On 18/05/16 04:50, Tim Northover wrote: > If you don't need/want the various Sanitizer runtimes (e.g. you don't > support sanitizers or already have versions provided with GCC) then > it's as easy as not downloading compiler-rt or removing it from the > projects/ directory before running CMake. The build should carry on > quite happily

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 19:47 -0500, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005, Paul wrote: > > I'm trying to pass an array pointer to my run-time generated module, and > > after a long time of searching for the answer, the only thing I got was > > a headache. Basically I have a few arrays (few megabytes which will > > sometimes be accessed as 8 / 16 / 32 / 64 bit