similar to: [LLVMdev] Language lawyer question

I thought pointer referencing like this was only valid for arrays. I could be wrong, but it might be that looping over the struct like that is invalid, making it undefined behavior (and then the hole doesn't matter because there is no valid way to access it). That said, I've definitely seen a lot of code that uses pointers to reference struct contents. On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:42

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:42 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > Looking through the gcc testsuite turned up an interesting edge case. Let's > assume our target leaves a hole for alignment in struct x, as do x86 and > powerpc. Do you think the following code can validly abort? > > > struct x { char c; short s; }; > int i; char *p; >

On Mar 11, 2008, at 9:47 PM, Patrick Meredith wrote: > I thought pointer referencing like this was only valid for arrays. > I could be wrong, but it might be that looping over the struct like > that > is invalid, making it undefined behavior (and then the hole doesn't > matter because there is no valid way to access it). That said, I've > definitely > seen

On Mar 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > Looking through the gcc testsuite turned up an interesting edge > case. Let's assume our target leaves a hole for alignment in struct > x, as do x86 and powerpc. Do you think the following code can > validly abort? No. The value of the object referred to be the left hand side must be replaced by the object on the

On Mar 11, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> I think the test case is bogus in terms of language correctness, > > Why? My gut. I listen to my gut. More seriously, C99 section 6.2.6.1 paragraph 6 has: > When a value is stored in an object of structure or union type, > including in a member > object, the bytes of the object representation that correspond to

On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > [...] >> I don't see a good way to do >> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and if >> you don't. > > > Could you use "##" instead of "#"? Pragmatically, that works (as I'm sure you know).

I'm seeing ~100 new failures in the gcc testsuite due to the test file being doubled or tripled, as below. This appears to affect only files that were newly imported from gcc-4.2 in the recent merge. Does anybody have an idea for how to mechanize fixing these (I doubt you can count on the APPLE LOCAL comment being there)? If there's no better way than slogging through

What environment is this? Some JITs work better than others. On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:35 PMPDT, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Aug 10, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Bueno, Denis wrote: > >> Running lli under gdb gives >> >> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault. >> [address] in ?? () >> (gdb) bt >> #0 [address] in ?? () >> Cannot access memory at

On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:00 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > No, C only requires support for objects up to 65535 bytes in size.  C99 5.2.4.1. 65535 bytes would be reasonably sufficient; what's the largest supported by the LLVM code generator?

> Dale Johannesen wrote: >> Marius Wachtler wrote: >> ... >> The call to address 0 gets removed. >> >> define i32 @t(i32 %a) noreturn nounwind readnone { >> entry: >> unreachable >> } >> >> How can I prevent that the call is removed, without making the >> function addr volatile? >> Does anyone know which optimization

On Mar 21, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Julien Lerouge wrote: > Hello, > > Apple's GCC does not make the distinction between .s and .S files and > always run the preprocessor. From the man: > > | file.s > | Assembler code. Apple's version of GCC runs the preprocessor > on these > | files as well as those ending in .S. > | > | file.S > |

How do I get the LLVM test-suite to work I have followed the /docs/TestingGuide.html but cannot seem to get it to work. I have tried many variations, but get no joy. The docmunetation does not appear very clear. Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090328/e15c2e57/attachment.html>

On Mar 28, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Aaron Gray wrote: > How do I get the LLVM test-suite to work I have followed the /docs/ > TestingGuide.html but cannot seem to get it to work. I have tried > many variations, but get no joy. The docmunetation does not appear > very clear. Some things that are not so obvious: The testsuite has to be checked out as a subdirectory of llvm/ projects;

On Mar 25, 2008, at 1:08 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Mar 24, 2008, at 3:18 PM, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> >> On Mar 24, 2008, at 5:40 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> [...] >>> I don't see a good way to do >>> full-line comments that works both if you run the preprocessor and >>> if >>> you don't. >> >>

On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Sep 24, 2007, at 3:07 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> A debug or release build? >> >> -bw > > Both, actually. Weird. I see a potential problem, though. The code is like this: void dumpToDOUT(SparseBitVector<> *bitmap) { dump(*bitmap, DOUT); } where dump expects an llvm::OStream& for the

Dale, > Works for me on x86-64 Darwin, fwiw. That looks pretty strange. Ok, it can work for small testcases, but will surely fail when you try to use for something more real. Currently it at least lacks information about frame moves. So, every invoke, which needs to restore call-clobbered registers during unwinding will be broken. Does Shootout-C++/except work for you? And stuff from llvm

On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Apache wrote: > http://llvm.org/nightlytest/test.php?machine=231&night=4754 > Name: il0102a-dhcp80.apple.com > Nickname: OldGrawp-O0-PIC > Buildstatus: OK > > New Test Passes: > test/CFrontend/2008-01-28-PragmaMark.c [DEJAGNU] > > > New Test Failures: > Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/except [LLC compile, ] >

on 05/03/2010 11:13 AM Dale Johannesen said the following: > On May 3, 2010, at 10:43 AMPDT, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote: > > >> I successfully built LLVM (r102824) with >> >> ./configure --enable-optimized --enable-targets=host --with-built-clang >> >> on Fedora 12 on an Athlon64 processor. (The clang is the 2.7 pre-built >> version.) > > and

This should have gotten an assertion failure in a compiler built with assertions, surely... On Sep 19, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Devang Patel wrote: >> $ llvm-gcc -x objective-c -arch ppc64 -std=c99 -c testcase.mi >> testcase.mi:12: internal compiler error: Bus error >> Please submit a full bug report, >> with preprocessed source if appropriate. >> See

On Feb 9, 2008, at 11:20 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Dale, > >> Works for me on x86-64 Darwin, fwiw. > That looks pretty strange. Ok, it can work for small testcases, but > will > surely fail when you try to use for something more real. Currently > it at > least lacks information about frame moves. So, every invoke, which > needs > to restore