similar to: [LLVMdev] Is the online demo using outdated binaries?

No. The demo is using 2.3. I update it personally after every release. Yes, it incorrectly says llvm2cpp, but its really using llc. I'll change this when I update it. The ReleaseNotes in TOT are for 2.4. -Tanya On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Throwing this C++ code at the online demo: > > struct S { > double d; > unsigned u; > }; > > S

Hi Gordon, Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to concentrated on how llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes you have suggested and it's now a lot nicer and cleaner! Please do say, if there is anything else. Anders Johnsen On Saturday 26 April 2008 22:02:45 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Thanks for the patch.

On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > Hi Gordon, > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > > concentrated on how > > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > > you have > > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and

On Apr 26, 2008, at 19:09, Anders Johnsen wrote: > On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: >> >> >>> +void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index, >>> unsigned align) { >>> + CallSite Call = CallSite(unwrap<Instruction>(Instr)); >>> +

On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > Hi Gordon, > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > concentrated on how > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > you have > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and cleaner! > > Please do say, if there is anything else. Nice. Just a few small

Hi Anders, Thanks for the patch. I'd like you to incorporate some feedback before I apply it, though. > Index: include/llvm/Argument.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Argument.h (revision 50213) > +++ include/llvm/Argument.h (working copy) > @@ -60,7 +60,16 @@ > + > + /// setByValAttr - Set true to give the

Hi.. Updated so you now set alignment through LLVMInstrSetAlignment. Anders Johnsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParamAttr.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 7420 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080424/cb72b4bb/attachment.patch>

On Sunday 27 April 2008 01:33:31 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 19:09, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > >>> +void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index, > >>> unsigned align) { > >>> + CallSite Call =

Hi folks, A while back I noticed some outdated information in docs/BitCodeFormat.rst about how parameter attributes were encoded — it describes an old encoding that was changed in 3.3 with the introduction of attribute groups. I opened a bug about this (https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28941) and started trying to write a patch, but along the way ran into more and more issues (e.g. new

I think it just changed formats which prompted a change in ID -- the code now uses TYPE_BLOCK_ID_NEW (= 17). I haven’t looked deeply to see how different it is. Ismail > On Oct 13, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > >> On Oct 13, 2016, at 10:24 AM, Ismail Badawi (ibadawi) via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>

Hi all, I've been discussing parameter attributes and their impact on first-class struct parameters. Duncan and I came to the conclusion that the only attribute that could be applied to structs currently, is the inreg attribute. However, since there is no support anywhere for that currently (transformation passes and backends?), it might be better to disallow the inreg attribute for struct

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs at stdin.nl> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been discussing parameter attributes and their impact on first-class > struct parameters. Duncan and I came to the conclusion that the only attribute > that could be applied to structs currently, is the inreg attribute. However, > since there is no support anywhere for

I'm now writing a pass and I wanna ask a question about how to duplicate the function and add duplicated arguments in llvm, for example: func(int a, char *b) -> func(int a, char *b, int a1, char *b1) I'm now stuck at using "getOrInsertFunction" and how to handle "getArgumentList", please share your opinion, thanks a lot! James

Hi, I'm using LLVM to make a D compiler in D with the llvm-c API. But since ParamAttr is missing in llvm-c, I've made a small patch to add this feature, with a lot of help from irc. Please do come with feedback if something is wrong... Anders Johnsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParamAttr.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 6959 bytes

Hi again, I found some errors straight after Mailing it - sorry about that! Anders Johnsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParamAttr.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 7207 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080424/ec006fbb/attachment.patch>

LLVM's Attribute APIs need an overhaul. Current problems ================ First, testing for an attribute on an Argument is slow. llvm::AttributeSet::getAttributes(int) consumed 2% of cycles while optimizing llc during LTO. Our mid-level optimizations are constantly asking if a given argument has some attribute (nonnull, dereferencable, etc), and this is currently linear in the size of the

Hi, I'm using LLVM 2.4 (but llvm-gcc 2.2) on Ubuntu 8.10 (Intrepid Ibex) for a small part-time project combining Witty (http://www.webtoolkit.eu) and the ExecutionEngine in LLVM. (This is my second week with any of these so I still lack a lot of basic knowledge.) Sometimes I want to call a function returing a struct (in this case std::string), thus hasStructRetAttr() is true for the Function

Most LLVM IR instructions have a result field, according to the Language Reference. I want to know, for all LLVM Instructions, is there an easy and consistent way to know if the current Inst has a result field? And if yes, what is the best way to obtain it? E.g.: <result> = add<ty> <op1>,<op2> /; yields {ty}:result / All ADD instruction will have a

Hi Chuck, > Most LLVM IR instructions have a result field, according to the Language Reference. > > I want to know, for all LLVM Instructions, is there an easy and consistent way > to know if the current Inst has a result field? > And if yes, what is the best way to obtain it? the instruction is the result! So everywhere you though you needed to use Instruction->getResult(),

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>