similar to: [LLVMdev] simulating c style unions in LLVM

2009/6/29 Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com>: > > I am trying to create a boxed tagged datatype for a language where it is necessary to resolve the type at runtime. If I were writing an interpreter in C- it would most likely look something like this- > > Is there a standard way for constructing a type like this in LLVM? > Well, you can always ask bitter melon, who

Thanks both. I looked over the getelementptr and bitcast documentation but I am still a bit confused by one point. lets say i have something like this. union { long Int; double float; long* IntRef; } Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way?

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? Not really; there's some discussion of that in the thread starting at

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? >> > > Not really; there's some discussion of that in

Hi Bitter Melon! If it's not too much trouble, could you add a check box to the LLVM demo page to pass the -fnested-functions option to llvm-gcc? I'm interested in studying how nested functions are implemented, but haven't yet been able to get llvm-gcc built on my own system. Thanks! Eric

Hi Eric, > If it's not too much trouble, could you add a check box to the LLVM demo > page to pass the -fnested-functions option to llvm-gcc? I'm interested > in studying how nested functions are implemented, but haven't yet been > able to get llvm-gcc built on my own system. I turned it on unconditionally. Meow! Bitter Melon.

2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value of > the member to be initialized, and the index of which member is being > initialized. Does requiring the index mean that uniquing the union type will have to re-write many of the

On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: > 2010/1/14 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > > The reason for doing it this way is that to construct a union, you really > > need 4 pieces of information: The type of the union, the type and value > of > > the member to be initialized, and the index of which member is being > >

I just looked over your diff and it would seem to me that additional changes would be needed to be done to some of the LLVM-IR -> DAG stuff to make things fully functional (this could be a bit of supposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > From: Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at

2010/1/15 Talin <viridia at gmail.com>: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:25 PM, me22 <me22.ca at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>    @foo = constant union { float, i32 } insertvalue union { i32, >> float } undef, i32 4, 0 >>    @bar = constant union { i32, float } insertvalue union { float, >> i32 } undef, i32 4, 1 >> > > Well, the fact that union members

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > I just looked over your diff and it would seem to me that additional changes would be needed to be done to some of the LLVM-IR -> DAG stuff to make things fully functional (this could be a bit of supposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). Code generation actually was

I''m returning some rows from a tags database that look like this: ID WORDS 1. apple banana pear 2. banana melon 3. apple peach lime What I want to do with that data is use the .split method to divide them into separate values in an array, then use the .uniq method to return a unique list of the words like so: apple, banana, pear, melon, peach, lime So in my controller I

Hi, I decided to implement a sanitizer that tracks the active member, and reports reads from inactive members. e.g.: struct S { union { long l; char s[42]; double d; }; }; void f() { S s; s.d = 42.0; if (s.l > 100) // fire here ; } My current implementation is naïve (also possibly wrong), and doesn't care about "special

Hi, i have the following code: define internal %"struct.dexter::ConditionConstant"* @_ZN6dexter18BinaryConditionAdd8evaluateEv5(%"class.dexter::BinaryConditionAdd"*) { entry: %1 = getelementptr inbounds %"class.dexter::BinaryConditionAdd"* %0, i32 0, i32 0, i32 1 %2 = load %"class.dexter::BaseCondition"** %1, align 8 %3 = bitcast

I apologize if this has been asked before but which classes utilize the information in these files? I am asking since I am trying to extend the MIPS backend to 64bit among other things. Thanks in advance, Carter.

I posted an initial implementation that would generate code correctly, though I don't know that all optimization pass were safe still. see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090511/077443.html As far as I know, there isn't enough demand right now for unions. They are mainly useful for target-independent front-ends. I don't have the time right now to push

Hi, I really dont know I came rather late to the discussion and some kind folks on this list gave me a few links. I didnt see much mention of any controversy. Are there issues still that need to be resolved? So far I am still quite the novice with LLVM internals but looking over the code it looks like one could hack in most of the required functionality up to the DAG building stage. I am not

Yes. But it is not really being used by most (any?) targets because post-RA scheduling is disabled by default. Also, the existing model is very limited in what types of micro-architectures can be described. I've been extending it to enable scheduling of multi-issue targets, targets with overlapping FU usage, and targets that use and define registers in multiple pipeline stages. See

I am curious- what is the current status of the MIPS support in LLVM? I have a mipsel device and was wondering if I could compile code for it with clang. Would I have to implement a backend setup myself? Is there also an option to compile w/ clang on an x86 for Mipsel? Thanks in advance.

Actually after some digging I managed to answer these questions for myself. I am guessing that this information is used by the Schedule* classes in CodeGen. --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > From: Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> > Subject: [LLVMdev] ARMSchedule.td MipsSchedule.td etc. > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Date: