similar to: [LLVMdev] Small problem with intrinsics

Hi Bart, I guess that's because the value of the last argument of llvm.memcpy has to be known at compile time. Nicolas Bart Coppens wrote: > Hello, > > I'm getting the impression that I'm misunderstanding something about > intrinsics. I have the following reduced testcase in mind: > > declare void @llvm.memcpy.i32(i8*, i8*, i32, i32) nounwind > > define

Hi Nicolas, > I guess that's because the value of the last argument of llvm.memcpy has > to be known at compile time. Hmmm ok, that's understandable, but it's also a bit of a problem for me. I am writing a pass that creates a 'shadow' copy of each function, so that I can do some bookkeeping with it, and then call the original function afterwards. This would include

On Apr 21, 2008, at 13:00, Bart Coppens wrote: > Hi Nicolas, > >> I guess that's because the value of the last argument of >> llvm.memcpy hasto be known at compile time. > > Hmmm ok, that's understandable, but it's also a bit of a problem for > me. I am writing a pass that creates a 'shadow' copy of each > function, so that I can do some

Hello, I have a nested named list structure, like the following: x <- list( list( list(df1,df2) list(df3, list(df4,df5)) list(df6,df7))) with df1...d7 as data frames. Every data frame is named. Is there a way to get a specific named element in x? so, for example, x[[c("df5")]] gives me the data frame 5? Thank you in advance! Best, Friedericksen

I've tried to get OpenSSH_3.7.1p2 to work over IPv6 under AIX 5.1.0 and 5.2.0 without success. If I configure sshd to listen to an IPv6 address it will take the uppermost 32 bits of the IPv6 address and interpret it as an IPv4 address. sshd_config: ------------ ListenAddress [2001:6b0:b:1::133] ListenAddress 130.238.4.133 ListenAddress 172.17.1.2 $ /usr/nbin/sshd -d -d -d debug2:

Hi all I have a project where LLVM annotations could be very useful. My current understanding of LLVM in general is still limited, hence a nice interface to annotations or sample code that uses annotations would help me to get started. I was wondering what happened to the proposal for a better interface to handling of annotations, which has been discussed in this thread back in July.

Hi, I'm trying to annotate certain functions in C code, and do something with these functions in my LLVM pass. I annotate the C code like this: int __attribute__((annotate("annot"))) function() { This nicely gets added to the LLVM bitcode in an @llvm.global.annotations global. Now I had hoped that it'd be easy to extract a list of functions annotated with my annotation

Thanks Anna, this was also quite interesting for me. Did you mean that I just have to eliminate the else branch or raise arround "All devices behind the uppermost PCI/PCI-X bridge must be co-assigned to the same guest." or do I have to eliminate more in order to prevent an FLR (whatever that is). For my board it''s definitely necessary to move PCI devices in different guests,

> ... and it's in.  Please let me know if you see any problems. My clang self-hosted build (Release+Asserts on Release+Asserts, Linux x86_64) fails with: make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jay/llvm/objdir-self/tools/opt' llvm[2]: Compiling GraphPrinters.cpp for Debug+Asserts build clang: /home/jay/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:194: typename

Jay Foad wrote: >> ... and it's in. Please let me know if you see any problems. > > My clang self-hosted build (Release+Asserts on Release+Asserts, Linux > x86_64) fails with: > > make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jay/llvm/objdir-self/tools/opt' > llvm[2]: Compiling GraphPrinters.cpp for Debug+Asserts build > clang:

On Jul 9, 2011, at 12:35 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > FYI, the type-system-rewrite branch is landing tomorrow morning, in mainline llvm, llvm-gcc and clang. I don't have updates, so dragonegg will have to remain broken until someone can fix it (the changes aren't too terrible, llvm-gcc is a good template). > > If you're interested in an early preview, the type-system-rewrite

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

Nick Lewycky wrote: > Jay Foad wrote: >>> ... and it's in. Please let me know if you see any problems. >> >> My clang self-hosted build (Release+Asserts on Release+Asserts, Linux >> x86_64) fails with: >> >> make[2]: Entering directory `/home/jay/llvm/objdir-self/tools/opt' >> llvm[2]: Compiling GraphPrinters.cpp for Debug+Asserts build

In compiling my software to use LLVM, I have noticed many occurrences of C style casting in LLVM header files. Since I compile with the -Wold-style-cast flag to g++, I get warnings about each of them. This isn't a big deal but I try to keep my code compilations both error and warning free (makes spotting true errors easier). I'm wondering why a new C++ (LLVM) would choose to use C style

Hello. I generated in the back end by hand (in C++ code, not with TableGen) some fancy assembly code using Inline ASM expressions and if I use 2 functions in my source code (but NOT just 1 function; I will not present the functions, but each requires me to generate an Inline ASM expression) I get this error at compilation (at scheduling): BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry

Hello; Thanks to Eli for the pointer to the ConstantDataArray::getString() fucntion. Now I am trying to declare a global char array with the content "hi" and call a function "print" (which takes a char pointer and return an insteger. I am doing the following in the code - Function Creation: PointerType* array = PointerType::get(IntegerType::getInt8Ty(getGlobalContext())

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend

FYI, the type-system-rewrite branch is landing tomorrow morning, in mainline llvm, llvm-gcc and clang. I don't have updates, so dragonegg will have to remain broken until someone can fix it (the changes aren't too terrible, llvm-gcc is a good template). If you're interested in an early preview, the type-system-rewrite branch contains the code for llvm and clang. I sent the llvm-gcc

I was poking through the black magic in Casting.h, and I see this interesting struct/function: template<class To, class FromTy> struct cast_convert_val<To,FromTy,FromTy> { // This _is_ a simple type, just cast it. static typename cast_retty<To, FromTy>::ret_type doit(const FromTy &Val) { typename cast_retty<To, FromTy>::ret_type Res2 = (typename

Hello, I have a problem of generating a load instruction. The LLVM bytecode is: ------------------------ entry: ... %2 = call i32 (...)* @atoi(i8*%1) nounwind /*<- Insertpos*/ ... -- bb1: .. %5 = icmp sgt i32 %2, %i.0 ... ----------------- Now I have pb: pointer to the Value object of *%2* of bb1. Here, I want to generate a load instruction and I did it as: new LoadInst(pb,