search for: zeroinitializers

Hello, i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, however I am not able to make it fold anything. Could you please give me some advice, what I am doing wrong? My code looks something like this: //data layout is obtained from clang-generated code for triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi with added v32:32:32 const char* const TARGET_DATA_LAYOUT =

I forgot to mention, that I use LLVM release 2.8, I did not try it with the latest revision, but I expect that I am rather doing something wrong than using non-implemented functions. On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:09:57 +0100, ihusar <ihusar at fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: > Hello, > > i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, > however

Adam, I just fixed this issue a few days ago. A version from the trunk should work for you. Cheers, Nadav -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of ihusar Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 15:52 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to use ConstantFoldConstantExpression? I forgot to mention, that I use

Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce this issue? On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied > the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. > > Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD > instructions.

Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD instructions. The common factor is in each case, ECX is set to 0x7fffffff, and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . Additionally, turning the optimization level passed to

Hi, Using llvm-stress, I got a crash after Post-RA pseudo expansion, with machine verifier. A 128 bit register %vreg233:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg233 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 gets spilled: %vreg265:subreg_l32<def,read-undef> = LLCRMux %vreg119; GR128Bit:%vreg265 GRX32Bit:%vreg119 ST128 %vreg265, <fi#10>, 0, %noreg;

I've attached the module->dump() that our code is producing. Unfortunately this is the smallest test case I have available. This is before any optimization passes are applied. There are two separate modules in existence at the time, and there are no guarantees about the order the surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be some interaction between them? There shouldn't

On 8/24/11 1:51 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Criswell<criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I currently have one of my transforms creating the following store >> instruction: >> >> store [65536 x i8] zeroinitializer, [65536 x i8]* %buf.i, align 16 >> >> ... which causes the SelectionDAG code

> So %passthrough can *only* be undef or zeroinitializer? No, it can be any value including undef and zeroinitializer. We considered, while designing, zero and merge semantics and decided that merge semantics is better because it covers zero semantics if you use zeroinitializer in the %paththru. - Elena -----Original Message----- From: dag at cray.com [mailto:dag at cray.com] Sent:

Dear All, I currently have one of my transforms creating the following store instruction: store [65536 x i8] zeroinitializer, [65536 x i8]* %buf.i, align 16 ... which causes the SelectionDAG code to assert out: Assertion failed: (ResNo < NumValues && "Illegal result number!"), function getValueType, file /Users/criswell/src/llvm/include/llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAGNodes.h,

Hello folks, I have a small piece of C code written like this: typedef struct { char a; int b; int c; } foo; foo myFoo[5] = {{0}}; With llvm-gcc 2.5, I get the following IR: %struct.foo = type { i8, i32, i32 } @myFoo = global [5 x %struct.foo] zeroinitializer, align 32 With the current 2.6, I get this: %0 = type { i8, [11 x i8] }

...e is to support multicore JIT architecture. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Julien Lerouge <jlerouge at apple.com> > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2009 7:55:37 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] LLVM-GCC & GV zeroinitializers, 2.5 vs 2.6. > > Hello folks, > > I have a small piece of C code written like this: > > typedef struct { > char a; > int b; > int c; > } foo; > > foo myFoo[5] = {{0}}; > > With llvm-gcc 2.5, I get the following I...

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 11:41 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > Dear All, > > I currently have one of my transforms creating the following store > instruction: > > store [65536 x i8] zeroinitializer, [65536 x i8]* %buf.i, align 16 > > ... which causes the SelectionDAG code to assert out: > > Assertion failed: (ResNo < NumValues &&

Hi, I check-out the latest version of LLVM and see many failures (on Win64): ******************** 67> FAIL: LLVM :: Transforms/GlobalOpt/zeroinitializer-gep-load.ll (5518 of 7763) 67> ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: Transforms/GlobalOpt/zeroinitializer-gep-load.ll' FAILED ******************** 67> Script: 67> -- 67> W:/LLVM_org/build64/bin/Debug/opt.EXE <

Hi, In order to find out-of-bound accesses to global objects with AddressSanitizer ( http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/AddressSanitizer) I need to create redzones to the left and to the right of every global variable. I tried the following: Before: @Extern = global [10 x i8] zeroinitializer, align 1 After: %0 = type { [32 x i8], [10 x i8], [54 x i8] } @Extern_asan_redzone =

The scoreboard hazard detector that I've added for the PPC 440 is not detecting hazards as it should (which certainly could be my fault somehow, but...). For example, it will produce a schedule that looks like... SU(28): 0x127969b0: f64,ch = LFD 0x12793aa0, 0x1277b4f0, 0x127965b0<Mem:LD8[%scevgep100](tbaa=!"double")> [ORD=41] [ID=28] SU(46): 0x12796ab0: f64 = FADD 0x127969b0,

Hi, I’ve come back and updated my llvm toolset with modern code (my branch was about 1-2 years old) and now the llvm IR files produced by my front end no longer compile with llc. Here is a sample of llvm ir produced by my front end (it’s a standard version 3.1 build of swift from the swift.org open source website). ; ModuleID = 'main.ll' source_filename = "main.ll" target

Hi, I received an internal test case from a game team (it wasn't about this in particular), and I was wondering if there was maybe an opportunity to canonicalize a particular code pattern: %inputi = bitcast <4 x float> %input to <4 x i32> %row0i = and <4 x i32> %inputi, <i32 -1, i32 0, i32 0, i32 0> %row0 = bitcast <4 x i32> %row0i to <4 x float>

Hi, I'm trying to do a proof of concept of compiling some code down to a very simple runtime that doesn't provide support for zeroinitialize. If I run the below code through llc: ; ModuleID = '.\t.bc' target datalayout = "e-m:w-p:32:32-i64:64-f80:32-n8:16:32-S32" target triple = "i686-pc-windows-gnu" @_ZN3Foo11ZeroAndZeroE = global [2 x i32] [i32 0, i32 0],

Two failing tests on x86-32 linux: FAIL: test/FrontendC/2008-08-07-AlignPadding1.c Failed with exit(1) at line 1 while running: /usr/local/bin/llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -w test/FrontendC/2008-08-07-AlignPadding1.c -m64 -S -o - -emit-llvm -O0 | grep