search for: zero'th

...ef.html (revision 66420) +++ LangRef.html (working copy) @@ -3637,11 +3637,13 @@ } </pre> -<p>Note that it is undefined to access an array out of bounds: array and -pointer indexes must always be within the defined bounds of the array type. -The one exception for this rule is zero length arrays. These arrays are -defined to be accessible as variable length arrays, which requires access -beyond the zero'th element.</p> +<p>Note that it is undefined to access an array out of bounds: array +and pointer indexes must always be within the defined bounds of the...

...'m generating debug metadata nodes >> directly instead of using DIBuilder since it doesn't seem to >> encapsulate situations like this. > > So, I assume you figured out how to create metadata nodes for TAG_subprogram and corresponding TAG_subroutine_type. If yes, then the zero'th element of array of types you supply (subroutine_type is encoded as composite type, see http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#format_composite_type) is return type. > > Let's say you have > > 1 > 2 int foo() { > 3 char c = 'a'; &gt...

...s $1 = 5"). I'm generating debug metadata nodes > directly instead of using DIBuilder since it doesn't seem to > encapsulate situations like this. So, I assume you figured out how to create metadata nodes for TAG_subprogram and corresponding TAG_subroutine_type. If yes, then the zero'th element of array of types you supply (subroutine_type is encoded as composite type, see http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#format_composite_type) is return type. Let's say you have 1 2 int foo() { 3 char c = 'a'; 4 return 42; 5 } Try...

On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:12 PM, Stefanus Du Toit wrote: >> Although, I'm not completely sure the transformation is safe, at >> least >> the way you're stating it; unlike add, GEP has undefined overflow, so >> this isn't right in cases like %call == %tmp4 == INT_MIN. > > Hmm, you raise a good point. There's a similar issue even without > overflow,

The Rust compiler defines all functions as returning void, with the first parameter being an outparam of the declared return type, ie. fn foo2() -> int { ret 5; } becomes define void @_ZN4foo217_5cb557d30658848cE(i64*, { i64, { %tydesc*, i1, {} } }*) uwtable { store i64 5, i64* %0 ret void } I'm working on generating debug information for Rust, and I'm currently stumped on how

...#39;m generating debug metadata nodes > directly instead of using DIBuilder since it doesn't seem to > encapsulate situations like this. > > > So, I assume you figured out how to create metadata nodes for TAG_subprogram > and corresponding TAG_subroutine_type. If yes, then the zero'th element of > array of types you supply (subroutine_type is encoded as composite type, see > http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html#format_composite_type) is > return type. > > Let's say you have > >      1 >      2 int foo() { >      3  char c = 'a&...

On 30-Jan-09, at 6:14 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Stefanus Du Toit > <stefanus.dutoit at rapidmind.com> wrote: >> The computation of %base then becomes loop-invariant and can be >> lifted out. >> >> What's the best way to add this optimization to LLVM? > > Probably the best place is LICM itself... only loop

...f (buf[si + 1])    /* high byte */ +                buf[di++] = '?'; +            else +                buf[di++] = buf[si]; + +        } +        buf[di] = 0; +        return di; + +    } else if (langid_fix == 0) { +        /* try to learn the langid and save it +         * Asking for the zero'th index is special:- +         * it returns a string descriptor that contains all the language IDs supported by the device. +         * Typically there aren't many - often only one. +         * The language IDs are 16 bit numbers, and they start at the third byte in the descriptor. +    ...

I'm interfacing to C code that uses 1-based indexing on arrays -- it ignores the zeroth element. Thus, input vectors from R must be moved up one, and output arrays must be moved down one. What is the best way to deal with this using R internal code? My current approach is: For an input R vector of length n, allocate a new vector(v) of length n+1 and copy input into v[1] to v[1+n...

...---------------------------------------------------===// >> -// ST + >> -//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// >> -/// >> -/// Assumptions::: ****** DO NOT IGNORE ******** >> -/// 1. Make sure that in post increment store, the zero'th operand is always the >> -/// post increment operand. >> -/// 2. Make sure that the store value operand(Rt/Rtt) in a store is always the >> -/// last operand. >> -/// >> +let isPredicable = 1, mayLoad = 1, neverHasSideEffects = 1 in >> +def LDrid_GP_...