similar to: [LLVMdev] Intrinsics question

The LLVA and LLVM papers motivate the GetElementPtr instruction by arguing that it abstracts implementation details, in particular pointer size, from the compiler. While it does this fine for pointer addresses, it does not manage it for address offsets. Consider the following code: $ cat test.c int main() { int *x[2]; int **y = &x[1]; return (y - x); } $ llvm-gcc -O3 -c test.c

I've been playing around with the new IndirectBr and BlockAddress types. I'm finding that in CodeGen, during "EliminateMostlyEmptyBlocks", BlockAddresses are not updated to point to the newly merged block if the original block was eliminated. This is causing me problems. Mind you, I'm experimenting with this using the Sparc backend, which could be the source of blame, but

Yes, I'm not arguing that there is a dependence, just that it's not a clobber dependence. The case of a load is already considered earlier in that function and with isLoad == false it returns MemDepResult::getDef(). My question is: why should a read-only call (which yields AliasAnalysis::Ref and is handled in this code fragment) be any different from e.g. a load. Isn't a read-only

My apologies. This problem was indeed with my changes to the backend. Next time I will more carefully examine the source of the problem. :) On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Marc de Kruijf <dekruijf at wisc.edu> wrote: > I've been playing around with the new IndirectBr and BlockAddress types. > I'm finding that in CodeGen, during "EliminateMostlyEmptyBlocks", >

Sorry, I misunderstood the question. The difference between a load and a read-only call is that load can be used as the value of the memory location. E.g. DeadStoreElimination pass removes a store that stores a just loaded value back into the same location. To do this it checks if the stored value is the value of load. Read-only call cannot be used like this. This being said, I don't know if

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:19 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > > Can anyone tell me if invoke/unwind is stable in 2.3? I'm seeing some > > really weird stuff -- unwinds are ending up in seemingly arbitrary > places... > > definitely not inside the caller's unwind block My target is x86. > > codegen doesn't know how to

Hello! I am running a "for" loop. In the loop I am producing some intermediary results and asking R to print it (of the type below). However, I noticed - when the task is complicated and takes a lot of time, R does not print those intermediary results immediately, but prints them in batches - or does not print at all until we are done with the whole calculation. Is there any way to

Ok, now I think I've found a bug: Consider this C code: void bar(int b) { int a[10]; memset(a, b, 10); } which generates this IR code: define dso_local void @bar(i32 %b) #0 { entry: %b.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %a = alloca [10 x i32], align 16 store i32 %b, i32* %b.addr, align 4 %arraydecay = getelementptr inbounds [10 x i32], [10 x i32]* %a, i64 0, i64 0 %0 = bitcast i32*

Hi, I am looking networking together about 1000-2000 sites across the country. I've been looking through these mailing lists. Saw the thread from the person who had 1000+ running on Amazon, and how they essentially stripped all security out of it. Also know that the ChaosVPN uses tinc, for at least 130+ sites although I'm a bit fuzzy on the details for it. Are there any other cases of

On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Marc de Kruijf <dekruijf at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > The LLVA and LLVM papers motivate the GetElementPtr instruction by arguing > that it abstracts implementation details, in particular pointer size, from > the compiler. While it does this fine for pointer addresses, it does not > manage it for address offsets. Consider the following code: > >

I've google for hours trying to find a discussion of a similar problem as the one I'm having, so forgive me if this has come up before. If it has, please point me in the right direction! The problem occurs when a caller (A) is transferred by an intermediary party (B) to voicemail (Voicemail or VoicemailMain), either directly or by being taken to voicemail when the callee (C) doesn't

I'm using rsync, ssh, and cron glued together with Python as a push-based synchronization system. From a single location, I push content out to various offices. I log stdout/stderr on the master server to make sure everything is running smoothly. I would now like for some of our "regional hubs" to take on some of the load (bandwidth-wise), while still retaining my centralized

Hello, I'm taking a really good look at the MemoryDependenceAnalysis pass, but I'm slightly confused about one little thing. I think it's a bug but I'm not confident enough to submit a bug report. Is there a reason why read-only calls are considered to "clobber" pointers in the non-load case (which is what gets returned due to the fall-through in the switch -- see

Hello, The basic infrastructure is in place. You can create first-class structs/arrays using sequences of insertvalue. For example, this: %t0 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } undef, i32 %a, 0 %t1 = insertvalue { i32, i32 } %t0, i32 %b, 1 creates the value with %a and %b as member values. Other ways to produce aggregate values are loads, function arguments, function return values, and literal

Hi Johannes, Thanks for your reply. I now see more clearly how things work with these properties. However, what would be an object whose address is potentially known by a callee? I suppose the intrinsic arguments and global variable? So IIUC, if not restricted by *only properties, an intrinsic could access to: - only its arguments if IntrArgMemOnly specified, - its arguments and the global

Hi, all. Swift uses a non-standard calling convention on its supported platforms. Implementing this calling convention requires support from LLVM and (to a lesser degree) Clang. If necessary, we’re willing to keep that support in “private” branches of LLVM and Clang, but we feel it would be better to introduce it in trunk, both to (1) minimize the differences between our branches and trunk and

Hello list, I'm contemplating running my own CA to implement the new proposed ISP for validation of S/MIME certificates via DANE. I already use self-signed for my MX servers (with 3 1 1 dane records on TCP port 25) but I don't want to use self-signed for S/MIME for user specific x.509 certs because A) That's potentially a lot of DNS records B) That requires a hash of the e-mail

Since isLoad == false means we're looking at a store, what this does is making the store *p depend on the load *p. This is correct -- you can't move store before load, otherwise load will start returning a different value. Eugene On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Marc de Kruijf <dekruijf at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm taking a really good look at the

On 04/14/2017 10:41 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: > https://www.openca.org/ might fit my needs. their Centos repo does not exist, it seems? > > On 04/14/2017 06:29 PM, Alice Wonder wrote: >> Hello list, >> >> I'm contemplating running my own CA to implement the new proposed ISP >> for validation of S/MIME certificates via DANE. >> >> I already use

We're still seeing sporadic failures of 'nbdkit nbd tls=', and I'm still trying to come up with a root cause fix (it may involve smarter use of gnutls_bye() in libnbd). In the meantime, here's what we know: when the hang/failure happens, the 'nbdkit nbd tls=' client process is stuck in a poll() waiting to see EOF from the server, while the 'nbdkit example1'