similar to: first class types

On 2018-05-25 00:39, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello, > > I see here: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#ret-instruction > > That the return instruction must only return values of first class > types, which would exclude struct and arrays. But some llvm > instrinsics do return struct, and it does not seems to be enforced on > any function. > > Is that

Ah, that's why Clang is obsessively pushing them into return by reference? On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 6:29 PM, whitequark <whitequark at whitequark.org> wrote: > On 2018-05-25 00:39, Alexandre Isoard via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I see here: https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#ret-instruction >> >> That the return instruction must only return

There are LLVM 2.9 RC1 pre-release tarballs source available. You can find them here: http://llvm.org/pre-releases/2.9/ Please download them, build them, and compile things to your heart's content. And most importantly file a bunch of bug reports. :-) Share and enjoy! -bw

Yes, all that is correct. My question is more a long term question: why do the .ll printer specify the alignment if it is equivalent to the default one? That is, it seems the sed script expect the printer to not specify it (this would match the load/store behavior), but the ll-printer does specify it, which either means the printer is not ideal on this case and I should fix it, or in this case

Good question. AFAIK, the IR-printer doesn’t understand the semantics of parameter attributes. In this case, it only knows that there is an attribute on the parameter that is integer valued (with value 1) and that has the name “align”, so it prints it out. If we don’t want it printing out ‘align 1’ then it’s up to us to not set the alignment parameter attribute to a value if that value would be 1.

And again... LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON This one is the good one... maybe. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Alexandre Isoard < alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > That is because I mistyped it: > LLVM_ENABLE_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Wink Saville <wink at saville.com>

On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: > Hello Timur, > >> I'd like to ask for advice: >> a) Is it OK to change the SRet/ThisCall behaviour on non-Windows platforms? >> [I suppose no] > no > >> >> b) Should I be altering CC_X86_32_ThisCall >> OR should I introduce CC_X86_Win32_ThisCall

On 2016-01-30 07:39, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:38 PM whitequark <whitequark at whitequark.org> > wrote: > >> On 2016-01-30 07:36, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> It's known to be failing right now because of recent changes, but >> I'm >>> curious why that bot has ocaml installed for the bindings? >> >> I would

Hello, I assumed SCEV purpose was to be a normal form, but then I wondered which one of those is the normal form: (zext i16 (trunc i32 %a to i16) to i32) vs (-((%a /u 65536) *u 65536) + %a) The first one is nice for interval analysis, and known bit analysis. The second one is nice when plugged into gep of 2d arrays. -- *Alexandre Isoard* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

On 07/05/2017 03:10 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > Ah, ok. I read it wrong. In *neither* case it is UB. > > Hum, can an implementation define it as UB? :-) Nope :-) The only case I've thought of where we could add these for C++ would be on conversions to (most) enums (because they used signed underlying types and the out-of-bounds mapping won't generally be one of the allowed

Hello, Yes? Where is allActive defined, I couldn't find it. Basically, a BB is control divergent if it's execution depends on a branch that itself depends on a divergent ssa value. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com> wrote: > What would be the definition of “isControlDivergent(BasicBlock*)”; the > complementary of “allActive(BasicBlock*)” –

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Alexandre Isoard <alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > LLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB Where/when/how do you specify LLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB and LLVM_LINK_DYLIB? I tried the following on the cmake command line: $ cmake -G Ninja .. -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/home/wink/opt/llvm -DLLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB=true -DLLVM_LINK_DYLIB=true And got: ... -- Performing Test

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:38 PM whitequark <whitequark at whitequark.org> wrote: > On 2016-01-30 07:36, Eric Christopher wrote: > > It's known to be failing right now because of recent changes, but I'm > > curious why that bot has ocaml installed for the bindings? > > I would guess because I've been asking for OCaml to be installed > for quite some time

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 07/04/2017 01:41 AM, Dr.-Ing. Christoph Cullmann via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Hi Alexandre, >>> >>> LLVM currently doesn't have trunc nsw/nuw, no. >>> Which frontend would emit such instructions? Any application in mind?

Thanks, that worked like a charm except for the following: llvm generate: call void @llvm.memcpy.p3i8.p1i8.i64(i8 addrspace(3)* align 1 bitcast ([512 x float] addrspace(3)* @a_scratchpad to i8 addrspace(3)*), i8 addrspace(1)* align 1 %0, i64 2048, i1 false) And we expected: call void @llvm.memcpy.p3i8.p1i8.i64(i8 addrspace(3)* bitcast ([512 x float] addrspace(3)* [[SPM0]] to i8

Hi, Even if there are no ways in which a *frontend* can produce nsw truncs, it may still be useful to have if optimization passes can usefully attach nsw to truncates (after proving the truncates don't "overflow"). For instance in %a = ashr i64 %v, i32 33 %t = trunc %a to i32 the trunc can be marked nsw. However, the burden of proof here is to show that we can do some useful

According to 6.3.1.3/3 of the C standard (I didn't check C++): "3 Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised." I *think* that means that IF a signal is raised then the signal raised could be one that you can't guarantee to be able to return from

Note that there is a slight difficulty due to the fact that we "sink" the trunc: (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) + (65536 * ({0,+,1}<nuw><%bb> /u 65536) Here the recurrence lost it's <nuw> and got reduced to a i16 (on the left), but not on the right. But we can prove: - that (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) has the same 16 LSB than (i32

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >

On 2016-01-30 07:36, Eric Christopher wrote: > It's known to be failing right now because of recent changes, but I'm > curious why that bot has ocaml installed for the bindings? I would guess because I've been asking for OCaml to be installed for quite some time :) > > -eric > > On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 8:34 PM Dmitri Gribenko via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at