similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 60000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness"

2007 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range invariant (max an min values seen). The problem is that for those invariants, I need to know if the value is signed or not (0xFF can be -1 or 255, depending on signed/unsigned).
2007 Jun 26
0
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
El 26/06/2007, a las 20:05, Chris Lattner escribió: > On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: >> I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some >> methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// >> citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range >> invariant (max an min values seen). The
2007 Jun 26
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: > The problem is that what i'm instrumenting is loads and stores, plus > function call arguments and return values, which have no signedness > information. Why do you need this? -Chris > El 26/06/2007, a las 17:03, Anton Korobeynikov escribió: > >> Hello, Alberto. >> >>> I'm using llvm for
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
2007 Jun 26
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM 2.0 and integer signedness
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Alberto González wrote: > I'm using LLVM to instrument C code to test the efectiveness of some > methods of error detection with dynamic invariants (see http:// > citeseer.ist.psu.edu/hangal02tracking.html). I'm using also a range > invariant (max an min values seen). The problem is that for those > invariants, I need to know if the value is
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 &
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 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
2015 Jan 28
0
problem giving setting user permissions on specific folder
Sometimes I have had problems with member servers. With the windows client, I set permissions on the file. But when I open the permissions windows, the permissions have not been retained. I use Samba 3.x machines as "classic" domain controllers- I suspect you are using an Win 200x AD domain controller. On the linux machine, what happens if you type "wbinfo -u"
2015 Jan 28
3
problem giving setting user permissions on specific folder
Hi Rowland: voyager /data/company # ls -la folder1/ insgesamt 56 drwxrwxr-x+ 1 administrator dom?nen-benutzer 744 26. Sep 12:45 . drwxr-xr-x 9 root root 4096 25. Sep 23:33 .. drwxrwxr-x+ 1 user dom?nen-benutzer 200 20. Jan 14:40 folderx drwxrwxr-x+ 1 user dom?nen-benutzer 288 19. Jan 14:19 folderxt drwxrwxr-x+ 1 administrator dom?nen-benutzer 20 26. Sep 00:18
2006 Oct 17
0
[LLVMdev] Signedness Elminiation
All, Please welcome Zhou Sheng <zhousheng00 at gmail.com> to the LLVM development community. Sheng is from Beijing and is a Masters student at the University there. Sheng and I will be working together on some significant changes to LLVM in the coming months. Our first task is to implement integer types without signs in LLVM. You can read Chris Lattner's notes on this change at this
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
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
2004 Dec 21
1
signedness
Hi, I need another clarification regarding the standard. In floor0 header decode (setup), the point no.7 says that if any of [floor0_order], [floor0_rate], [floor0_bark_map_size], floor0_amplitude_bits], [floor0_amplitude_offset] or [floor0_number_of_books] are less than zero, the stream is not decodable But as we see, all those values are read as unsigned integers. Now I'm not able to
2011 Sep 05
2
[LLVMdev] arithmetical operands signedness
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: > c = a *s b > and an unsigned multiply > d = a *u b > then c and d are the same number