similar to: [LLVMdev] Inrinsic Creation Problem

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Inrinsic Creation Problem"

2008 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] Problem with variable argument intrinsics
Hi, I tried creating variable argument intrinsics which are to be placeholders for some instructions which should not be executed by the backend. Kindly help me with the errors in my "migrate_begin" intrinsic creation //Additions made to Intrinsics.td file: def llvm_migrate_begin : LLVMType<iAny>; def int_migrate_begin :
2008 Feb 20
1
[LLVMdev] Invalid intrinsic name error
Hi, Thank You for the advice and we were able to solve that problem by the following modifications to the Instrinsics.td file. But I now have an "Invalid Intrinsic name" error This error occurs presumably because the created intrinsic is named: llvm.migrate_begin.i32 Intrinsics.gen checks for a string length of 18 (i.e. the length without the .i32). Kindly help me through it.
2008 Feb 19
0
[LLVMdev] Problem with variable argument intrinsics
On Feb 19, 2008, at 1:11 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating variable argument intrinsics which > are to be placeholders for some instructions which > should not be executed by the backend. > > Kindly help me with the errors in my "migrate_begin" > intrinsic creation > > //Additions made to Intrinsics.td file: > > def
2008 Mar 04
0
[LLVMdev] Deleting Instructions after Intrinsic Creation
Hi, I tried creating intrinsics which are to be placeholders for a set of instructions which should not be executed by the backend. I want to retain only intrinsic,phi and terminator instructions in a basic block. I have taken care of the external dependencies of basic block. How do I delete the rest of the instructions? Thank You Aditya P.S:
2008 Mar 04
1
[LLVMdev] Deleting Instructions after Intrinsic Creation
Hi, I tried creating intrinsics which are to be placeholders for a set of instructions which should not be executed by the backend. I want to retain only intrinsic,phi and terminator instructions in a basic block. I have taken care of the external dependencies of basic block. How do I delete the rest of the instructions? Thank You Aditya P.S:
2008 May 07
2
[LLVMdev] Creation of Intrinsics with Pointer Return Types
<table cellspacing='0' cellpadding='0' border='0' ><tr><td style='font: inherit;'>Hi,<br>I tried creating intrinsics which are to be<br>placeholders for a set of instructions (actually a section of a basic block) to be executed elsewhere(for e.g. in HW).<br>These intrinsics are to take care of the data dependencies of the set of
2008 May 07
0
[LLVMdev] Creation of Intrinsics with Pointer Return Types
Hello, LLVM's intrinsic overloading mechanism does not currently support overloading on pointer types. Patches to implement this would be welcome. Dan On May 7, 2008, at 9:25 AM, aditya vishnubhotla wrote: > Hi, > I tried creating intrinsics which are to be > placeholders for a set of instructions (actually a section of a > basic block) to be executed elsewhere(for e.g. in
2008 Mar 17
1
[LLVMdev] Adapting created intrinsics to PowerPC backend
Hi, I have implemented intrinsics which are placeholders for instructions executed elsewhere (e.g. in HW). So i have two types of intrinsics migrate_begin and migrate_end. Now i would like to make these intrinsics known to the PowerPC backend. Since the hardware initialization can not be implemented by one instruction it has to be expanded to a library call or lowered to something the ppc
2015 Jan 13
0
CentOS 6.6 64-bit won't install on a 3 TB disk
On 01/13/2015 12:47 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> I'm having an issue getting a C6.6 install to work on a 3 TB dual hard >> drive system, raid 0. I'm hoping that someone here can help. > 1: Is this system booting UEFI or BIOS? > 2: Is the disk partitioned with MBR or GPT? > 3: Is /boot on its own partition? > > 3TB drives are larger than MBR and BIOS properly
2010 Jun 18
1
12th Root of a Square (Transition) Matrix
Dear R-tisans, I am trying to calculate the 12th root of a transition (square) matrix, but can't seem to obtain an accurate result. I realize that this post is laced with intimations of quantitative finance, but the question is both R-related and broadly mathematical. That said, I'm happy to post this to R-SIG-Finance if I've erred in posting this to the general list. I've
2009 Jan 12
2
bwi: no DS tssi no OFDM tssi
Hello, I am attempting to get by broadcom wifi card up and running, am sick of trying to get ndis working, and am attempting to use the bwi driver (originating in dragonflyBSD). I'm hoping others here have tried to do the same and have some pointers. I'm using 7.1-RELEASE (system/source are in-sync) and my card is a BCM94306MP. My dmesg is posted below. Bwi(4) is installed and it
2007 Apr 20
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-gcc Bug, Looking for Advice on Fix
David Greene wrote: > The problem is that Intrinsic::getDeclaration takes four > parameters but is only passed two: > > Function *Intrinsic::getDeclaration(Module *M, ID id, const Type **Tys, > unsigned numTys) It turns out that this happens all over llvm-convert.c. Tys and numTys default to zero, which is why it builds. The problem is,
2006 Nov 15
1
[LLVMdev] LowerCALL (TargetLowering)
Hi Evan, On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:17 -0800, Evan Cheng wrote: > Hi Nickhil, > > The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same > number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion > is checking. > > Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will > see that in the non-void function case, it
2006 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] LowerCALL (TargetLowering)
Hi Nickhil, The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion is checking. Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will see that in the non-void function case, it returns a MERGE_VALUES, i.e. all the results merged along with the chain. Cheers, Evan On Nov 15, 2006, at
2009 Mar 24
0
[LLVMdev] va_start
Hi, When I try to use va_start(ptr), I got the following problem : Type *Tys = Type::VoidTy; Or Type *Tys = PointerType::get(IntegerType::get(8), 0); return Intrinsic::getDeclaration(llvm_module,Intrinsic::vastart,&Tys,1); ............... The Name generated is "llvm.va_start.p0i8", so, it's not found, abending the process. and Len = 18 In intrinsics.gen : if (Len == 13
2009 Sep 07
0
[LLVMdev] PR4882
Hi Jakub, looks good. > + LLVMContext *Context = &SI->getContext(); I guess this could be LLVMContext &Context = SI->getContext(); which means you can use Context rather than *Context below. > - const Type *Ty = Type::getInt64Ty(SI->getContext()); > - MemSetF = Intrinsic::getDeclaration(M, Intrinsic::memset, &Ty, 1); > + const Type *Tys[] =
2009 Sep 07
1
[LLVMdev] PR4882
On Sep 7, 2009, at 5:02 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jakub, looks good. > >> + LLVMContext *Context = &SI->getContext(); > > I guess this could be > LLVMContext &Context = SI->getContext(); > which means you can use Context rather than *Context below. Right, C bad habit ;) Fixed. >> - const Type *Ty = Type::getInt64Ty(SI->getContext());
2012 Jul 04
0
[LLVMdev] Bogus assert in VMCore/Instructions.cpp CallInst::Create?
Andrew Ruef wrote: > Evening, > > I was writing some code that tried to insert calls to the > llvm.annotation intrinsic function, which has a signature of (i32, > i8*, i8*, i32). The code is below. > > void addAnnotation( BasicBlock *block, Function *F) > { > string foo = "foo"; > string bar = "barr"; > > Type
2006 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] LowerCALL (TargetLowering)
Hi, I am trying to write a LowerCALL() function for my (custom) target ISA. All I need to do is map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834:
2008 May 07
0
Kernel panic - em0 culprit?
Hello, My server is experiencing occasional kernel panics when under moderate load. I'm attaching a crash dump and the dmesg output. I'm not sure how to read the kernel backtrace but it looks like the Intel NIC (em0) caused the problem. Occasionally, I used to get a "em0: watchdog timeout -- resetting" error message, but I never had a kernel panic. The problem started last