similar to: Allow CallSlot optimization for throwing functions for sret arguments

The frontend code is a pretty simple for loop, that counts from i = 0; i != 10; i += 1 It gets optimized into and endless loop. export fn entry() void { var array: [10]Bar = undefined; var x = for (array) |elem, i| { if (i == 1) break elem; } else bar2(); } Here's the generated IR: ; ModuleID = 'test' source_filename = "test" target datalayout =

I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on alpha.  The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets the sret on the parameter.  If I just go this path, then I am setting sret on an integer pointer, which verify objects too.  LangRef doesn't say scalars are allowed to have sret set, but

On Aug 19, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > I am needing to return i128 as a shadow return due to abi issues on > alpha. The problem I am running into is the code for doing that with > scalars (currently only used for vectors, as far as I can tell) sets > the sret on the parameter. If I just go this path, then I am setting > sret on an integer pointer, which verify

On Oct 6, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Can you give an example of where it would trigger in LTO and when should > not? > > You could imagine that __muldc3 might be

Dear All, What is the purpose of the sret function parameter attribute? Does it affect the calling convention used during code generation, is it a hint to optimizations, or is it used for something else? I'm currently working on automatic pool allocation; this transform clones a function and adds extra parameters to the beginning of the function's parameter list. This means that I

Hello, What intrinsics "@llvm.lifetime.start/@llvm.lifetime.end" really do? As per my knowledge, they define the live ranges of variables. In the following code section, they seem redundant. However, when I remove them, the behavior of the code becomes non-deterministic. The live ranges of the variables defined by them are never used in the code. Thanks, --------------- %37 = bitcast

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM, John Criswell <criswell at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Dear All, > > What is the purpose of the sret function parameter attribute?  Does it > affect the calling convention used during code generation, is it a hint > to optimizations, or is it used for something else? Both of the above; see LangRef. > I'm currently working on automatic pool

I have these two instructions, first one inside some procedure, second one is an outside declaration. Code verification passes and it runs, but incorrectly. Every time I saw such situation coming from c++ compiler, attributes 'noalias sret' appear on both call and declaration. Does such situation make sense, or (as I guess it is) a bug in verifier? I think verifier should match at

Hi, all When I compile the C code containing the next statement to LLVM, *struct A const o = func(...);* I got the next corresponding LLVM bytecode *call void @func(%struct.A* noalias sret %o, ...)* Could you tell me why function "func" with a return value is changed to be one with a void return value and another more parameter %o. Does "noalias sret" play a special role?

Hi all, I am trying to generate LLVM IR that calls an external C++ function returning a structure by copy: vec3 vec3::Cross(const vec3& iV) const; Here is the LLVM IR that I am generating for win32 ABI, which says that the first parameter should be a pointer to the return value: %vec3 = type <{ float, float, float }> define void @CPP_Return_Struct(%vec3* %v1, %vec3* %v2) inlinehint

Unfortunately this is what I'm already doing, and it's not working. I drew inspiration from a disassembly of a program that showed that struct foo { int a; float b; char buf[80]; } struct foo get_foo(void) { foo f = { 5, 2.5 }; return f; } would turn into define void @get_foo(%struct.foo* sret %agg.result) nounwind ssp { ... call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i8.p0i8.i64(i8* %2, i8*

Hi all, I'm currently building a DSL for a computer graphics project that is not unlike NVIDIA's Cg. I have an intrinsic with the following signature float4 sample(texture tex, float2 coords); that is translated to this LLVM IR code: declare void @"sample"(%float4* noalias nocapture sret, %texture, $float2) nounwind readnone The type float4 is basically an array of four

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Joe Groff <arcata at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: >> >>> This is why I suggest that the Windows ABI is whatever MSVC happens to >>> do. The mingw ABI happens to

On May 7, 2010, at 6:24 PM, Yuri wrote: > I have these two instructions, first one inside some procedure, second > one is an outside declaration. > Code verification passes and it runs, but incorrectly. Right, this code has undefined behavior. > Every time I saw such situation coming from c++ compiler, attributes > 'noalias sret' appear on both call and declaration.

On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 8:22 AM, Joe Groff <arcata at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 8:15 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > >> This is why I suggest that the Windows ABI is whatever MSVC happens to >> do. The mingw ABI happens to consist of a conjunction of what MSVC does for >> C and what GCC on Linux does for C++. That is a

On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Damien Gleizes <gleizesd at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am trying to generate LLVM IR that calls an external C++ function > returning a structure by copy: > vec3 vec3::Cross(const vec3& iV) const; > > Here is the LLVM IR that I am generating for win32 ABI, which says that the > first parameter should be a pointer to the

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 04:35:10PM -0700, Tim Northover wrote: > > That seems to make it a pretty good case for consider sret mandatory in > > general. > > (Still) no more than any other type cast IMO. If you know what you're > doing you can cast function pointers (at the LLVM level), otherwise > you're going to get into trouble. I think we are talking about two

On Wed, Oct 07, 2015 at 10:28:59AM +0200, Jonas Maebe via llvm-dev wrote: > > James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote on Tue, 06 Oct 2015: > > >Certainly a mismatch between sret and not-sret from caller to callee could > >not possibly work on sparc, because sparc's calling convention for struct > >return is totally bonkers. > > It won't work on AArch64 either:

Hello Aaron, Anton, LLVM-dev, While working on http://llvm.org/PR13676#c6 I found out that whenever I compile code with class methods returning structures it get generated incompatible with MSVC. Looking at lib/Target/X86/X86CallingConv.td, I found out that CC_X86_32_ThisCall maps SRet to EAX but in fact it should push the address of the return temp on stack. The following patch fixes the issue

On 08/03/2015 18:07, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Nicholas Chapman > <admin at indigorenderer.com <mailto:admin at indigorenderer.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > I have identified what seems to be a limitation of LLVM with > regard to marking 'sret functions' as pure/readonly. > > For some context - I have