similar to: [LLVMdev] Re: LLVM & Large memory 64-bit systems

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Hello Chris, > > many thanks for your quick fix. No problem. > I'm currently trying to compile llvm under AMD64 - after applying the trivial > fix for Burg/zalloc.c attached below I do get pretty far - compilation stops > somewhere in gcc when compiling libgcc, probably related to a varargs problem. > I still have to

Volodya, I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the attachment is obviously generated by code that runs quite differently because the virtual register names

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

Okay, let me test with exactly your options and I'll let you know what I get. Reid. On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:53:15 +0400 Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> wrote: > Reid Spencer wrote: >> Volodya, >> >> I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test >> using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm

Reid Spencer wrote: > Volodya, > > I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test > using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm > also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have > been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the > attachment is obviously generated by code that runs

Okay, I've replicated your results, but I don't think there's an error here, its just not nice output from the disassembler. The first %tmp.ll is of type long. The second one is of type short. I think that's valid for LLVM. That is, the SSA form depends on both the type and name of the virtual register. In any event, llvm-as seems to compile the llvm-dis output just fine. Make

Distinguished LLVM Creators, I've been looking through the bytecode representation of the type definition table and had a few questions about it. There's an enum in Types.h that defines all bytecodes that represent the primitive types and a few other necessary things: 0 = 0x00 = Void 1 = 0x01 = Bool 2 = 0x02 = UByte 3 = 0x03 = SByte 4 = 0x04 = UShort (16 bits) 5 = 0x05 =

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

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I'm having problems with the following LLVM instruction > > %tmp.0.i = call int (sbyte*, ...)* > %printf( sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1, long 0, ...... > > The first argument in function call, > > sbyte* getelementptr ([11 x sbyte]* %.str_1..... > > appears to be ConstantExpression*, and my

Ok, here's the new patch. (Please tell me if I shouldn't mail patches directly on the mailing list.) While I was editing LowerGC.cpp I made a little test (not part of this patch, but the diff with LowerGC.cpp in cvs is attached). I've added a new intrinsic called llvm.gcroot_value(sbyte*, sbyte*), which takes a pointer directly instead and transforms it into an alloca. The idea is the

Carl, The thing you're missing is that LLVM's primitive types have well known, fixed sizes that are not target dependent. A ulong is 8 bytes. A uint is 4 bytes. A ushort is 2 bytes. Etc. and always. There are also methods in LLVM to help you deal with the size of a type in bits and bytes. In particular you might want to note the following methods: Type::isSized Type::getPrimitiveSize

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > Yes, this makes a tremendous amount of sense. Do you think you could > prepare some patches to make this happen? If you have any questions, feel > free to ask :) 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? Hopefully I've understood the llvm source

Further to that, I thought an example might be useful. In the following code, n should end up with a value that varies nondeterministically with the scheduling decisions made by the underlying run time system -- my model checker, for example, should in theory be able to enumerate all possible values. Anyway, if you look at the compiler output (see below), the volatile global variable, n, has

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

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

lli executed the bytecode corresponding to test_3.0_ml.ll without a failure, even though Function() is accessing an invalid memory address. The original code is in test_3.0.c, and the malloc() in Create() has been replaced by alloca() in test_3.0_ml.ll. I expected lli to segfault or similar when testing my code. Are my assumptions erroneous? -------------- next part --------------

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005, John Carrino wrote: > 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

Hi, I'm trying to compile and run the following code-snippet: implementation uint %fie(uint* %x) { %e = getelementptr uint* %x, int 1 ; %f = load uint* %e ret uint 3 } int %main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv) { %z = malloc uint, uint 10 %g = call uint %fie(uint* %z) ret int 0 } But the getelementptr instruction gives a segmentation fault. Have I misunderstood its use? I