similar to: [frontend-dev][beginner] Allocation of structures

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Dimitri Racordon via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi all, > > I’m pretty new to the list, and to LLVM in general, so please excuse my > extreme newbiesness. > > I’m trying to figure out what would be the appropriate way to implement > move semantics. > I’ve been trying to dump the IR produced by clang with some

On 4 Jun 2020, at 0:54, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > While MLIR may be one part of the solution, I think it's also the case > that > the function-ABI interface between Clang and LLVM is just wrong and > should > be fixed -- independently of whether Clang might use MLIR in the > future. > > I've mentioned this idea before, I think, but never got around to

Hello folks, I have a compiler written with LLVM 2.6 by a student that produces .ll files, It behaved fine at the time. Trying to take the work over using version 3.0, I run into the problem that "malloc" in the IR is no longer valid: semac1 menu > llvm-as Carre.ll llvm-as: Carre.ll:68:14: error: expected instruction opcode %_malloc = malloc i8, i32 %2 ;

Hi LLVM folks, To properly implement pass-by-value in the Microsoft C++ ABI, we need to be able to take the address of an outgoing call argument slot. This is http://llvm.org/PR5064 . Problem ------- On Windows, C structs are pushed right onto the stack in line with the other arguments. In LLVM, we use byval to model this, and it works for C structs. However, C++ records are also passed this

Hello, LLVM team! I faced a problem with passing structures by value on Windows (both x86 and x64). I tried to write simple { i32 i32 } Vector2D addition using IR builder (signature is Vector2D add(Vector2D a, Vector2D b)). x86 version worked fine, but on x64 function returned incorrect value. Some research showed, that { i16 i16 } addition also fails on x86, so I guess the problem is in passing

On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 9:59 AM Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think the idea of more expanded frontend support library makes sense. > The main use case that I've heard for such a library is to help frontends > generate LLVM IR that interfaces with the local native C ABI. > I agree it would be good to have a library for shared frontend

Hi everyone, Currently, when declaring a va_list in llvm, one only needs to do: %ap = alloca i8 * (Reference : llvm/docs/LangRef.html#int_varargs) This is OK for x86 and PPC/Darwin ABI because a va_list in these architectures is just a pointer to the stack. The va_start intrinsic just initializes where the pointer points at in the stack. I do not know how the other backends operate, but I

Hi, I wanted to know if it was possible to force ARM backend to compile a function in ARM while the rest is in Thumb mode. I tried the attributes which is used in GCC but it doesn't work. Here is what I tried: https://pastebin.com/jCr5LPUY Thanks in advance, Uvekilledkenny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Evandro Menezes <emenezes at codeaurora.org> wrote: ... > Figure 3.3 on page 16 of www.x86-64.org/documentation/abi.pdf is not > normative. See foot note 7 in the same page. Figure 3.4 on page 21 > confirms that the use of a frame-pointer is optional. > > So, if one doesn't use ENTER in the prologue and uses RSP to access local >

Hi, I made a simple test about aggregates in llvm IR. My simple LLVM code is running as expected under linux 32/64, but not under windows 32. After searched on the web on multiple return values, I'm still not sure if this test case can be flagged as the ABI issue. Or this would be a llvm code generator bug on window 32. The complete IR is attached as a text file and I checked the test with

Am Sa., 16. Nov. 2019 um 10:56 Uhr schrieb John McCall via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Anyway, if we had that Clang-level library, t would be fairly > straightforward for someone interoperating with the C ABI to just > construct the appropriate Clang types and call those APIs. The main motivation is to have ABI-emitting code (in particular for OpenMP) shared between

On 02/28/2015 10:04 AM, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > Hi, > > On 2015.02.28 10:53:35 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> >>>> 6. Use the lifetime.start/lifetime.end and >>>> invariant.start/invariant.end intrinsics where possible >>> Do you find these

> On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:53 AM, Björn Steinbrink <bsteinbr at gmail.com> wrote: > > On 2015.02.28 18:17:27 -0800, Philip Reames wrote: >>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Björn Steinbrink <bsteinbr at gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2015-02-28 23:50 GMT+01:00 Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>: >>>>>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Björn

Hi Dan, > Changing PromoteCastOfAllocation to not replace aggregate allocas with > non-aggregate allocas if they have GEP users sounds reasonable to me. This sounds reasonable indeed, but still a bit arbitrary. Haven't figured out anything better yet, though. > Finding the maximum alignment is sometimes still useful though, so > it would be nice to update the alignment field of

For this C code: typedef struct s2 { char s2C1 , s2C2; } s2td; clang generates: %struct.s2 = type { i8, i8 } which I lets llvm decide on the actual layout of this type. For the return statement in: struct s2 fs2 ( char fs2p1 ) { struct s2 ls2; ls2.s2C1 = 'B'; ls2.s2C2 = fs2p1; return ls2; } I see this IR: %struct.s2 =

Hal, Thanks for your suggestion. I think that makes sense. Currently, non-zero alloca address space is already represented by data layout, e.g., the last component of the data layout of amdgcn---amdgiz target is -A5, which means alloca is in address space 5. How about adding a letter z to -A5 to indicate alloca may have zero value? i.e. -A5 means alloca is in address space 5 and always has

On 2015.02.28 14:23:02 -0800, Philip Reames wrote: > On 02/28/2015 10:04 AM, Björn Steinbrink wrote: > >Hi, > > > >On 2015.02.28 10:53:35 -0600, Hal Finkel wrote: > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>>From: "Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> > >>>>6. Use the lifetime.start/lifetime.end and >

On Fri, Dec 9, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Friedman, Eli via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 12/9/2016 8:45 AM, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 8, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> So IIUC basically the *only* reason for this IR change is that we don’t >> want to pattern match in debug build? >> I don't

********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. ********************************************************************** Hi Just installing R and some

> On Feb 28, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Björn Steinbrink <bsteinbr at gmail.com> wrote: > > [This time without dropping the list, sorry] > > 2015-02-28 23:50 GMT+01:00 Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com>: > >>>> On Feb 28, 2015, at 2:30 PM, Björn Steinbrink <bsteinbr at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2015.02.28