similar to: How to create a call to a function which returns a struct

(though, usual caveat: you /usually/ shouldn't be doing that - instead relying only on whatever semantics the IR actually carries, rather than implying extra semantics based on the demangled name) On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 12:48 PM Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I have not tried it but maybe > > `std::string llvm::demangle(const

I am sorry to not make my question clear. My question is how this value is calculated without having fadd and fsub in IR? On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 4:06 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > Neither 1e16 or 1e16+1 can be accurately represented in a double. The > largest integer than be accurately represented is 2^53. As the number gets > larger floating sacrifices

Hello, I am doing some program analysis with C++ programs. I need to check if some particular function is called in the program, for that I need the name of the function being called in the call instruction. Since C++ mangles the name of the function, I need a way to demangle the function name in llvm IR. Is there any way to achieve that in llvm pass? Regards, Sangeeta -------------- next part

Hello, I am working on creating a llvm pass which clones a certain function with a different name using CloneFunctionInto. I create a call instruction to call a new cloned function from the old function. In llvm IR and in .s file everything looks as expected, but when I call this program with gdb and set a breakpoint on this new function, gdb shows the name of the original function. I know it has

Do you pull clang under llvm/tools and compile it as well? In theory, if `opt` recognize the option, so does `clang -mllvm`. 2018-01-12 8:47 GMT+08:00 sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com>: > Hello, > > I have tried giving this option like this > > clang -c -emit-llvm -mllvm -rdetector hello.c -c -o hello.bc > but I am getting error " Unknown command

This is of course not homework. I am trying to understand how fast math optimizations work in llvm. When I compared IR for both the programs, the only thing I have noticed is that fdiv and fmul are replaced with fdiv fast and fmul fast. Not sure what happens in fdiv fast and fmul fast. I feel that its because d/max is really small number and fast-math does not care about small numbers and consider

Hello, I have followed steps given in - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693 <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/29910051/integrating-llvm-passes/48142693#48142693>, to integrate my pass with pass manager and run it with clang. I am able to run my pass with opt - opt -mypass but when I try to run it with clang, I always get an error -

Hello, LLVM IR flattens out the structure with one integer element to i32. Is there any way to disable this? I want to preserve the type information of the structure. I tried compiling the program with O0, it maintains the type for most of the instructions but for all. Regards, Sangeeta -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I have below code in C - int main() { double x,y; x = 1e16; y = (x + 1) - x; printf("y:%e\n", y); return 0; } llvm bitcode looks like this for this function - ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define dso_local i32 @main() local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %call = tail call i32 (i8*, ...) @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8], [4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64

On 14 Jan 2018, at 00:14, sangeeta chowdhary <sangitachowdhary at gmail.com> wrote: > > I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. The SimplePass example is intended to be built out of tree, so I’ve no idea what happens if you

I have taken SimplePass and added in Transform directory, “libLLVMSimplePass.a” is built but I can not see this pass in opt —help. I don’t even see the name of pass while registering it in the example. > On Jan 13, 2018, at 7:35 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 13 Jan 2018, at 03:45, Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hello All, I am instrumenting IR to pass addres of the function to runtime but I am getting error - Instruction does not dominate all uses. I used M.dump() to get below dump, not able to figure out what I am doing wrong. Any help would be much appreciated. define dso_local double @mysqrt(double %val1) local_unnamed_addr #0 { entry: %0 = bitcast double (double)* @mysqrt to i8* %1 = call

can you please describe a bit more about the steps taken to clean up and re-configure gluster? Regards, Vijay On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Sangeeta Ramapure < sangeeta.ramapure at globallogic.com> wrote: > Kindly somebody help me with this issue. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > Sangeeta Ramapure > > > > *From:* Sangeeta Ramapure

On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: >> Can you give some background about what kinds of things you're >> thinking >> about for this? > For example, when I have a function returning {i32, i32} and I want > to add > another i32 to that. If this was a function that simply returns two > i32 > values, any caller will only use extractvalue on

Kindly somebody help me with this issue. Thanks & Regards, Sangeeta Ramapure *From:* Sangeeta Ramapure [mailto:sangeeta.ramapure at globallogic.com] *Sent:* June 09, 2017 4:41 PM *To:* 'gluster-users at gluster.org' *Cc:* 'devarajan at ericsson.com' *Subject:* After gluster clean up sub directories becomes invisible Hi Team, After performing the gluster clean up

Hi Dan, > The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee > gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism > with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far. I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying it could be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about

As I understand it, first-class structs will allow structs to be passed as function arguments and returned as results (i.e. multiple return values) instead of passing pointers to structs. However, the GEP instruction only handles pointer types. So I do not understand how you will be able to extract the fields of a struct when it is received as a value type. Will the GEP instruction be altered

Hi Can someone explain to me why we cant use uint64_t for extractvalue and insertvalue indices, while GEP on arrays can have indices of any integer type. Basically if I load an array with UINT_MAX+O (O>=2) elements, I can not extract its last element. Given this restriction I feel we have a bug here (uint64_t is passed as a unsigned). This cant happen because of the if (NumElements > 1024)

[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a > document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to > support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as > always will need to

Hi Team, After performing the gluster clean up and again doing gluster configuration the sub directories become invisible. Even after they are present the directories are invisible. If I create a new directory by the same name it will say the directory already exists. Thanks & Regards, Sangeeta Ramapure -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: