similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] use-diet for review

On Apr 29, 2008, at 1:27 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved > and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. > > Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did > not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest > the .cpp and other files. Hi

Hi Gabor, Thanks for posting the memory savings. 13% less memory usage in 447.dealII is very impressive. I haven't taken more than a very brief peek at this patch, but I have a few questions already. Is there a header missing? I don't see DECLARE_TRANSPARENT_OPERAND_ACCESSORS defined anywhere. Also, what affect does this macro have on doxygen? In User.h: +public: + template

I am new to LLVM and couldn't find any llvm-user list, so I am posting my user question here, sorry. I am trying to create a simple "puts" call accepting the static string, with the code below. The last line (CallInst::Create) fails with an assert: "Calling a function with a bad signature!" Because the type of function is void(u8*) and the argument supplied is:

I am confused by this bit of code in instcombine: 09789 if (GetElementPtrInst *GEPI = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(Op)) { 09790 const Value *GEPI0 = GEPI->getOperand(0); 09791 // TODO: Consider a target hook for valid address spaces for this xform. 09792 if (isa<ConstantPointerNull>(GEPI0) && 09793

Mike, Holger, thanks for the tips, but being a long-time subversion user, I already knew this all :-) The problem was that I did an SVN merge from branch to trunk, and I ended up with: ... M include/llvm/User.h A + include/llvm/OperandTraits.h M include/llvm/Instruction.h ... The little "+" after the "A" means, the file got copied unchanged, and I think this is

John, I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out << "********operand is an instruction ****"; if (GetElementPtrInst *gepI =

Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi Gabor, I don't see OperandTraits.h. Sorry, I relied "svn diff" to include freshly added files. Apparently it did not :-/ Here are they. I pondered of putting all in Use.cpp into Value.cpp, but I am not so sure. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OperandTraits.h Type:

> On Dec 8, 2014, at 5:12 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Partially answering my own question, in general these are not > equivalent because LLVM allows for pointers in different address > spaces to have different sizes. However, are they equivalent if > pointers in addrspace(1) have the same size as pointers in > addrspace(0)? > >

Hi, when I updated the sources today there were several small problems that stopped the windows version from compiling, here are the patches m. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: win32patches.txt URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20041115/34634455/attachment.txt>

Is copy.0 semantically equivalent to copy.1 in the following example? define void @copy.0(i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst) { entry: %val = load i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src store i8 addrspace(1)* %val, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst ret void } define void @copy.1(i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %src, i8 addrspace(1)* addrspace(1)* %dst)

On Apr 29, 2008, at 9:40 AM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Sorry, I relied "svn diff" to include freshly added files. svn add file svn diff . will show it.

I am trying to create such module with API (it's equivalent to c++: const char* ss[] = {"s1","s2"};): @ss = global [2 x i8*] [i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0), i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0)] ; <[2 x i8*]*> [#uses=0] @.str1 = private constant [3 x i8] c"s1\00", align 1 ; <[3 x i8]*> [#uses=1]

On 1/20/2011 10:02 PM, Surinder wrote: > When I compile C programs into llvm, it produces load instructions in > two different flavours. > > (1) %8 = load i8** %bp, align 8 > > (2) %1 = load i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, > i64 0), align 1 > > I know that %bp in first case and the entire "getelementptr inbounds > ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64

On 1/21/2011 10:46 PM, Surinder wrote: > John, > > I have looked at the SAFECode and thought following sould work > > if (isa<Constant>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<< "*** operand 0 is a constant ******"; > if (Instruction *operandI = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I.getOperand(0))) > { Out<<

When I compile C programs into llvm, it produces load instructions in two different flavours. (1) %8 = load i8** %bp, align 8 (2) %1 = load i8* getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0), align 1 I know that %bp in first case and the entire "getelementptr inbounds ([4 x i8]* @.str, i64 0, i64 0)" in second case can be obtained by dump'ing I.getOperand(0)

Hi! Attached patches split init.trampoline into adjust.trampoline and init.trampoline, like in gcc. As mentioned in the previous mail, I've not made a documentation patch, since I'm not sure about what the documented semantics of llvm.adjust.trampoline should be. Thanks! -- Sanjoy Das http://playingwithpointers.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

John, I have looked at the real code (instead of the obsolete one) and it appears to be easy to find if an operand is a getelementptr instruction. if (ConstantExpr * CE = dyn_cast<ConstantExpr>(I.getOperand(0))) { Out<< "*** operand 0 is a constant Expr******"; if (CE->getOpcode() == Instruction::GetElementPtr) { Out<< "*** operand 0 is

Hi, I am trying to figure out the best way to add some extra metadata to the store and load llvm-ir instructions: The metadata content is a 'Value*' expression representing a side channel, containing dependency information that is used to help the Scoped Alias Analysis. Optimizations that don't know about this side channel can safely drop it, where the only effect would be on the

I now understand that IndVarSimplify.cpp is capable of reproducing array references when the pointer initialization from the array address is found inside the immediately enclosing loop, such that in the following code: int A[20000], B[100], Z; int main() { int i, j, *a, *b; for ( a = &A[0], i = 0; i != 200; i++ ) for ( b = &B[0], j = 0; j != 100; j++

Hi Johannes, > Now that reasoning works from a conceptual standpoint only for > non-inbounds GEPs, I think. From a practical standpoint my above > description will probably make sure everything works out just fine (see > also my rephrased answer down below!). I say this because I think the > following lang-ref passage makes sure everything, not only memory > accesses, involving