similar to: [LLVMdev] getelementptr results in seg-fault.

Hi Tobias, I tried your test program on the latest CVS code. Everything worked fine. Can you tell me which version of LLVM you're using? Reid. On Sat, 2004-06-12 at 08:26, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to compile and run the following code-snippet: > > implementation > > uint %fie(uint* %x) { > %e = getelementptr uint* %x, int 1 > ;

Hi! Hmm, ok. I'm using the 1.2 release. Found out that it worked when using long to index getelementptr, but not when using uint, int or ulong. But then I'll try with the CVS code instead. Thank you. , Tobias On Sat, 12 Jun 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Tobias, > > I tried your test program on the latest CVS code. Everything worked > fine. > > Can you tell me which

Hi, I'm thinking out loud, please give me some feedback. Regarding llvm.gcread and llvm.gcwrite, wouldn't it be nicer if they are implemented as: llvm.gcread(sbyte** object, uint offset) llvm.gcwrite(sbyte* data, sbyte** object, uint offset) Where you also have the offset into the object. In this way the GC would know where the header of the object we are reading/writing to is. Also

Hi, This is regarding the backend for garbage collection. My problem might be related to some strange memory fault created by my frontend, but I'll try here to get some feedback. For some strange reason I get segmentation fault in process_pointer in semispace.c (I've implemented a small collector, hopefully :). The fault occurs when I do: printf("process_root[0x%p] = 0x%p\n",

On Mon, 19 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > Not currently. In the future this will definitely be improved. In > > particular, when the code generators are enhanced to provide more accurate > > mapping information for GC pointers (e.g. which registers contain > > pointers), we can do this. This is in the long term plans, but I suspect > > that performance will

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > void *llvm_gc_read(void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) { > > return *FieldPtr; > > } > > Hm, but doesn't FieldPtr need to be calculated target-specific in those > cases? For the field pointer, one could use the getelementptr instruction: %pairty = { sbyte, sbyte, int* } %pairPtr = ... %fieldptr = getelementptr

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > [1] I'm kind of newbie of cvs, but I did: > "cvs -z3 -d :pserver:anon at llvm-cvs.cs.uiuc.edu:/var/cvs/llvm diff llvm > gcpatch" That patch is well formed. You did exactly the right thing. :) > Ok, a patch[1] is attached. I didn't care to coerce the offset, since I > assume that it is an uint, but maybe I should?

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > Hi, I'm thinking out loud, please give me some feedback. > > Regarding llvm.gcread and llvm.gcwrite, wouldn't it be nicer if they are > implemented as: > > llvm.gcread(sbyte** object, uint offset) > llvm.gcwrite(sbyte* data, sbyte** object, uint offset) > > Where you also have the offset into the object. In

Ok, that makes sense :). , Tobias On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > > > void *llvm_gc_read(void *ObjPtr, void **FieldPtr) { > > > return *FieldPtr; > > > } > > > > Hm, but doesn't FieldPtr need to be calculated target-specific in those > > cases? > > For the field pointer, one

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:05:32PM +0300, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > >>Is assert(!NewSTy->isAbstract()) must pass after this line? > > > >In this case, yup. > > > I create test program and assert failed in it: > > { \2 *, sbyte * } How do I decode the \2 in this? I am creating types through this interface and I get quite a mess seen below. And this is

When I increased COLS to the point where the loop could no longer be unrolled, the selection dag code generator generated effectively the same code as the default X86 code generator. Lots of redundant imul/movl/addl sequences. It can't clean it up either. Only unrolling all nested loops permits it to be optimized away, regardless of code generator. Jeff Cohen wrote: > I noticed

Hi, Is there a way to modify the string such as char a or char b? Could I use the way like "Replace an instruction with another Value" in Programm Manual? In fact, what I am interested in is string with visible expression, not all string, and I am trying to hide the orignal string by using simple way like XOR.. Is there a way to reorder the basic blocks? Thanks. Qiuyu C Source

I noticed that fourinarow is one of the programs in which LLVM is much slower than GCC, so I decided to take a look and see why that is so. The program has many loops that look like this: #define ROWS 6 #define COLS 7 void init_board(char b[COLS][ROWS+1]) { int i,j; for (i=0;i<COLS;i++) for (j=0;j<ROWS;j++) b[i][j]='.';

FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/Transforms/InstCombine/2004-11-27-SetCCForCastLargerAndConstant.ll: %Y = cast sbyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast ubyte %SB to

Hi, I'm working on a CS326 compiler project, and I'm having some problems using string functions. Some LLVM programs produced are either aborting or giving incorrect results; however, if I disassemble the LLVM bytecode and recompile with GCC, everything works fine. I encountered the following error when running lli with '-force-interpreter' option: "Tried to execute an

On Sun, 4 Apr 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Congrats on getting this taken care of finally. I know its something > you've wanted to do since 1.0. It certainly has been on the grand TODO list for a long time :) > I have one question. How does LLVM disambiguate between a uint used for > a structure and a uint used for an array? It depends on the operand number of the

Hi , I got a few for writing a pass. 1) Is it possible to use input parameters in command line ? For example, we got our own pass, ie. HELLO opt -load ../../Debug/lib/libHELLO.so -HELLO < hello.bc From the above command line, could we use some input parameter and we can read those parameter in Pass routine? 2) For splitting BB, the way what I did is to pick up instruction

Hi Chris, Congrats on getting this taken care of finally. I know its something you've wanted to do since 1.0. I have one question. How does LLVM disambiguate between a uint used for a structure and a uint used for an array? My assumption is that LLVM is aware of the type of the thing being indexed all the way through the dereference so it doesn't really matter what index type is being

Two unexpected failures are occurring: FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/CodeGen/X86/shift-double.llx: FAIL: /usr/home/jeffc/llvm/obj/../test/Regression/Transforms/InstCombine/2004-11-27-SetCCForCastLargerAndConstant.ll: %Y = cast sbyte %SB to uint ; <uint> [#uses=1] %Y = cast sbyte %SB to int ; <int> [#uses=1] %Y =

Hello, when I'm compiling test/Programs/SingleSource/UnitTests/2003-05-26-Shorts.c I get LLVM assembler which looks like: int %main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv) { entry: call void %__main( ) %tmp.11 = call ulong %getL( ) ; <ulong> [#uses=16] %tmp.3 = cast ulong %tmp.11 to long ; <long> [#uses= %tmp.5 = cast ulong %tmp.11 to