similar to: [LLVMdev] Marking source locations without interfering with optimization?

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: > I've been thinking of adding an instruction, and I'm following the > advice in the docs to consult the list before doing something rash. Always a good idea! :) Instead of adding an instruction, I'd suggest adding an intrinsic. You can mark intrinsics as not reading/writing to memory (see lib/Analysis/BasicAliasAnalysis.cpp for

Chris, Thanks for the suggestions. On 8/22/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 19 Aug 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > I've been thinking of adding an instruction, and I'm following the > > advice in the docs to consult the list before doing something rash. > > Always a good idea! :) Instead of adding an instruction, I'd

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: >> Okay... this is tricky. Anything that will bind to variables will >> prevent modification to the variable. > > I see - so if I wanted to use my earlier approach, I'd need to change every > optimization and analysis to treat the 'marker' instructions specially as > instructions that don't modify their

On 8/23/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: > >> Okay... this is tricky. Anything that will bind to variables will > >> prevent modification to the variable. > > > > I see - so if I wanted to use my earlier approach, I'd need to change every > > optimization and analysis to treat the

Greetings all, I am picking up the work that was started in https://reviews.llvm.org/D27133 — adding support for an element-atomic memcpy/memset/memmove to LLVM. I would appreciate suggestions/thoughts/advice/comments on how to best proceed with this work in a way that will be acceptable to the LLVM group. I apologize in advance; this is going to be a long one... **Background** Loads/stores

Hi Sanjoy, Responses inlined… > On May 8, 2017, at 12:49 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > [+CC Mehdi, Vedant for the auto upgrade issue] > > On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 7:54 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> **Method** >> >> Clearly we are going to have to teach

Hi, I will try to explain by giving an example. Let's say that I have an intrinsic: int llvm.myintrinsic(int) I have a function: int myintrinsic_handler(int) When %var = call int %llvm.myintrinsic( int %arg ) is met in the code, I want the code generator put in its place: a call to function "myintrinsic_handler" (i.e. %var = call int %myintrinsic_handler( int %arg ) ) or

I'm using Windows 8.1, and every time I run check-clang, I eventually end up with a bunch of hung processes. Generally this is an instance of clang.exe, a bunch of instances of FileCheck.exe, and occasionally an llc.exe and an opt.exe. Inside, the processes are all hung inside of calls to WriteFile() attempting to write to stdout. I notice some of the tests fail with output indicating that

cmake -E cmake_progress_report llvm-3.8.0.src_bld_x86_64-rhel6.4-linux-gnu/CMakeFiles In file included from llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/include/__hash_table:19:0, from llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/src/hash.cpp:10: llvm-3.8.0.src/projects/libcxx/include/cmath:310:9: error: '::signbit' has not been declared using ::signbit; ^

On Sat, 2007-03-31 at 12:38 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> 3. Can I introduce an intrinsic that is actually a call to my function > >> that implements the logic? I suppose it is possible but unfortunately > >> I couldn't figure it out. For example, in GCC we can write an > >> intrinsic that translates to a C code. > > > > As part of PR1297

Dear R People: I have the following data frame: > x.df date cond freq 1 04/01/09 Fever 12 2 04/02/09 Fever 11 3 04/03/09 Fever 10 4 04/04/09 Fever 13 5 04/05/09 Fever 6 6 04/01/09 Rash 6 7 04/02/09 Rash 10 8 04/03/09 Rash 9 9 04/04/09 Rash 10 10 04/05/09 Rash 8 11 04/01/09

Matt, The added intrinsic in DAG looks like: 0xbedb698: i32 = llvm.MyIntrinsic 0xbedb200, 0xbedac18 [ORD=4] The builtin in DAG looks like: 0xbedb2a8: i32,ch = llvm 0xbedb158:1, 0xbedb200, 0xbedb158 [ORD=7] [ID=16] The only difference I'm seeing is the extra operand, which is a 'ch' from a load. On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 3:55 PM, Matt Arsenault <arsenm2 at gmail.com>

Hi, The C backend in llc generates code like: static inline int llvm_fcmp_ord(double X, double Y) { return X == X && Y == Y; } static inline int llvm_fcmp_uno(double X, double Y) { return X != X || Y != Y; } First of all it generates a warning by clang and gcc (with certain flags): x.cbe.c:130: warning: comparing floating point with == or != is unsafe Now, C99 provides a macro for this

Is there a way to implement an intrinsic that looks like a conditional branch so that it has 2 edges to 2 basic blocks? Taking a step back, I'm trying to make a special branch where Passes treat it just like a regular conditional branch except that it's condition is opaque to everyone, so it isn't removed by optimizations. Additionally, the special branch would codegen (to x86) to

>> 3. Can I introduce an intrinsic that is actually a call to my function >> that implements the logic? I suppose it is possible but unfortunately >> I couldn't figure it out. For example, in GCC we can write an >> intrinsic that translates to a C code. > > As part of PR1297 (http://llvm.org/PR1297) I am about to make this > happen. There are certain kinds of

Dear R People: I have the following data set with the columns DATE, GENDER, and Co. Co has 8 possible options. > a.df[1:10,] DATE GENDER Co 1 2009-04-16 F Rash 2 2009-04-16 F Other 3 2009-04-16 M Botulinic 4 2009-04-16 M Other 5 2009-04-16 M Constitutional 6 2009-04-16 F Other 7 2009-04-16

I've tried all the types (both for result and Intrinsic ID), can't seem to find what cast is causing the issue here. On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > That's what I thought but I got the same error with: > > DAG.getNode(ISD::INTRINSIC_WO_CHAIN, DL, VT, > DAG.getTargetConstant(Intrinsic::my_intrinsic, DL, MVT::i16), LHS);

The intrinsic ID is an int, not a float. —escha > On Jun 24, 2016, at 7:49 AM, Ryan Taylor via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > given the following C code: > > float b=16, a=0; > int main() { > float a = sqrt(b); > return0; > } > > I'm trying to lower FSQRT down, but getting a casting issue, my code is: > > SDValue

* Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> [2019-10-01 09:44:54 -0400]: > Let's change the example to eliminate suspects: > #include <math.h> > int is_nan(float x) { > /* > The following subclauses provide macros that are quiet (non > floating-point exception raising) > versions of the relational operators, and other comparison

Greetings! I have been building llvm-3.6.x, 3.7.1 and 3.7.2 with (glibc-2.12.1, binutils-2.24, gcc-4.9.2) almost same set if CMake flags. However while building LLVM-3.8.0 using same CMake flags I am observing projects/libcxx/include/cmath errors... ...'::signbit' has not been declared ...'::fpclassify' has not been declared ...'::isfinite' has not been declared ...