similar to: [LLVMdev] Signedness Elminiation

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Signedness Elminiation"

2010 Nov 10
1
[LLVMdev] Fw: llvm-gcc not compatible with gcc on a small case?
Whoops, forgot to CC: the list. > >----- Forwarded Message ---- >From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> >To: Sheng Zhou <zhousheng00 at gmail.com> >Sent: Tue, November 9, 2010 9:26:51 PM >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llvm-gcc not compatible with gcc on a small case? > > >Hi Sheng Zhou, > > >It shouldn't compile. You have the method declared
2007 Feb 21
0
LLVM 2.0 Progress Report
Hi Everyone, I'm happy to say that LLVM has made many leaps and bounds since the last update in November. Because we are bumping the major version number with this release, we're letting the release go for twice as long as our planned release schedule (6 months instead of 3). We are currently half way through the LLVM 2.0 development cycle. So far, many important and invasive changes
2008 Mar 04
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc 4.2 building failed on x86-64
Hi Sheng Am Dienstag, 4. März 2008 schrieb Zhou Sheng: > Current llvm-gcc 4.2 building failed on X86-64, here is the dump I am not followng head closely but may it be that the current head still doesn't support amd64 proper: gcc README.LLVM: "When targeting non-darwin X86-64/AMD-64/EM64-T, configure with --disable-shared. The LLVM X86-64 backend doesn't support PIC codegen on
2008 Sep 04
3
[LLVMdev] A simple case about SDiv
Hi, I have a simple C case as following: int test(int x, int y) { return -x / -y; } With llvm-gcc -O1, I got: define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y) nounwind { entry: sub i32 0, %x ; <i32>:0 [#uses=1] sub i32 0, %y ; <i32>:1 [#uses=1] sdiv i32 %0, %1 ; <i32>:2 [#uses=1] ret i32 %2 } With llvm-gcc -O2, I got: define i32 @test(i32 %x, i32 %y) nounwind { entry: sdiv i32
2009 Jan 13
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc doesnt honor volatile quantifier of the array type?
This looks wrong to me, though the x86 backend produces code that does the right thing (reads each element once). If you change the code (see below) to read each element twice, llvm-gcc still does the right thing but llvm-g++ does not (i.e. it fails to read aech location twice). Current versions of gcc/g++ also look wrong. All 4 compilers (gcc,g++,llvm-gcc,llvm-g++) do the right thing when
2008 Jan 14
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc miscompilation or it's the gcc's rule?
I don't think C has a way to express 32b x 32b -> 64b multiply, even though there is (on x86 anyway) a hardware instruction that does it. The type of your expression (x * y) is still uint32_t. The implicit type coercion up to uint64_t as part of the return statement doesn't change this. On Jan 13, 2008, at 10:29 PM, Zhou Sheng wrote: > Hi, > > Here is C function: >
2008 Jun 03
2
[LLVMdev] signedness of types
Hi I currently would like to find out the signedness of a instruction. But looking at the CBackend, it looks as if it is not that simple? So i have two questions: Is there an easier way than guessing as it is done in the CBackend? Is there a reason for that signedness is not part of the instruction type? Best regards ST
2008 May 23
1
[LLVMdev] Eliminate Store-Load pair even the LoadInst is volatile
Hi, Thanks, John, I just forgot the multi-thread issue. I'll write my own pass to handle this as for my project, it is just single-thread case. Sheng. Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 09:30:45 -0500 > From: John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Eliminate Store-Load pair even the LoadInst is > volatile > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List
2008 Jun 03
0
[LLVMdev] signedness of types
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:42 AM, ST <st at iss.tu-darmstadt.de> wrote: > Hi > > I currently would like to find out the signedness of a instruction. But > looking at the CBackend, it looks as if it is not that simple? So i have two > questions: > Is there an easier way than guessing as it is done in the CBackend? > Is there a reason for that signedness is not part of the
2011 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] arithmetical operands signedness
Hi, my target handles operands of multiplying instructions differently based on signedness. I wonder then how I would do instruction selection based on the operands signs? The mul instruction sets a nsw for signed, but when i try unsigned ops, there is no wrap flag at all. I'm not sure this is enough information to work with, or? Jonas -------------- next part --------------
2011 Sep 05
0
[LLVMdev] arithmetical operands signedness
Hi Jonas, > my target handles operands of multiplying instructions differently based on > signedness. since the result of a multiply doesn't depend on the signedness, I find it strange that your target differentiates between them. What I'm saying is that if you have (say) two i32 numbers a and b and you do a signed multiply: c = a *s b and an unsigned multiply d = a *u b
2007 Jun 26
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
Hello, Alberto. > I'm using llvm for instrumenting code, and I need to know if there's a way to > difference between signed and unsigned Values of integer type during an > optimization pass. Types are signless in LLVM 2, operations are not. So, you should probably inspect insts itself, not their operands. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics &
2007 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
The problem is that what i'm instrumenting is loads and stores, plus function call arguments and return values, which have no signedness information. El 26/06/2007, a las 17:03, Anton Korobeynikov escribió: > Hello, Alberto. > >> I'm using llvm for instrumenting code, and I need to know if >> there's a way to >> difference between signed and unsigned
2004 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:55, Robert Mykland wrote: > At 05:09 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > >If you're interested in the plans, they are described in some detail here: > >http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt > > > >Note that there is no concrete timeline for this to happen, it basically > >depends on when someone is ambitious
2019 Nov 05
0
[klibc:master] losetup: Fix char signedness mismatches with <linux/loop.h>
Commit-ID: 8443e57e5ba71e462e31e3b5aad9f7dd1b4736f5 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=8443e57e5ba71e462e31e3b5aad9f7dd1b4736f5 Author: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> AuthorDate: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:39:53 +0000 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 00:44:32 +0000 [klibc] losetup: Fix char signedness
2011 Sep 05
0
[LLVMdev] arithmetical operands signedness
Hi Christophe, On 05/09/11 18:35, Christophe de Dinechin wrote: > > On 5 sept. 2011, at 17:48, Duncan Sands wrote: > >> since the result of a multiply doesn't depend on the signedness, I find it >> strange that your target differentiates between them. What I'm saying is >> that if you have (say) two i32 numbers a and b and you do a signed multiply: >>
2011 Nov 04
0
[patch 2/2] xen-gntalloc: signedness bug in add_grefs()
gref->gref_id is unsigned so the error handling didn't work. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() returns an int type, so we can add a cast here, and it doesn't cause any problems. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() can return a variety of errors including -ENOSPC, -ENOSYS and -ENOMEM. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntalloc.c
2011 Nov 04
0
[patch 2/2] xen-gntalloc: signedness bug in add_grefs()
gref->gref_id is unsigned so the error handling didn't work. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() returns an int type, so we can add a cast here, and it doesn't cause any problems. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() can return a variety of errors including -ENOSPC, -ENOSYS and -ENOMEM. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntalloc.c
2011 Nov 04
0
[patch 2/2] xen-gntalloc: signedness bug in add_grefs()
gref->gref_id is unsigned so the error handling didn't work. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() returns an int type, so we can add a cast here, and it doesn't cause any problems. gnttab_grant_foreign_access() can return a variety of errors including -ENOSPC, -ENOSYS and -ENOMEM. Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter at oracle.com> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntalloc.c
2007 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
Hello everyone! I'm using llvm for instrumenting code, and I need to know if there's a way to difference between signed and unsigned Values of integer type during an optimization pass. I know in llvm 1 it was possible, but i'd like to work with llvm 2. Maybe using the debugging information? Is it available during an optimization pass? How do I access it? Thanks in advance Alberto