similar to: [LLVMdev] Mismatched caller/callee + unreachable

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Hans Wennborg wrote: >> I too have stumbled over this. >> >> Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a check for this to the function >> verifier pass? > > No. This is a FAQ: http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#callconvwrong IMO you could move the cc to the type and still replace mismatched

Hans Wennborg wrote: > I too have stumbled over this. > > Wouldn't it be a good idea to add a check for this to the function > verifier pass? No. This is a FAQ: http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#callconvwrong Nick > > > Hans > > Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> Hello >> >>> I naively though it would pick up the call convention from the declaration

Hi. I have a beginner conceptual question about Asterisk: Let's suppose that there are 4 softphones registered in my Asterisk and all of them are currently online. In addiction , there is no call. Suddenly, one of these softphones sends a SIP message to the Asterisk. In this case the dialplan will execute the instruction ' exten => 2005,1,Dial(SIP/2000&SIP/2001&SIP/2002,

I am using EQTDDataStructures (from the poolalloc project) to resolve indirect function calls to over-approximated sets of possible callees. Unfortunately I find that it yields incorrect results even on a very simple test input. My LLVM and poolalloc sources are Subversion trunk checkouts, no more than a day older than the current trunk head. My test input is the following C source,

On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Ben Liblit <liblit at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > I am using EQTDDataStructures (from the poolalloc project) to resolve > indirect function calls to over-approximated sets of possible callees. If I remember correctly, it only tries to resolve indirect calls. The analysis doesn't track direct calls because you can do it just as well yourself. Andrew

Sounds like LLVM thinks the calling conventions or declarations are mismatched. See: http://llvm.org/docs/FAQ.html#callconvwrong Reid On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Well, after some investigation I have a few more clues as to what is > going on. > > I have a module which contains a call to an external native function. > This native

Hi, I've been playing with T.38. I observed that mostly but not always, it's the "calling endpoint" that reINVITE the other party to drop current SIP/G711 session and start a new T.38. But sometimes, it's also the callee party that reINVITE the calling party. Which is the "standardized" or most common, way to start a T.38 session ? Shall it come from callee or

Hello, you know , when a call setup, either caller hangup first or callee hangup first , the hangupcause will set to 16(means Call Clearing Causes) My question is how could i identify whether the caller or callee hangup the phone first? Best Regards! -- Thanks for your supporting, have a nice day. Sucan

Hello, I'm having problems with LIMIT_PLAYAUDIO_CALLEE in the Dial application. I want to play the limit file to both caller and callee at the same time, but it plays the limit file first to the caller and then to the callee. I searched the list and found someone with the same problem back in '06, but couldn't find any solution for the problem :( Anyone knows? Thanks, Best regards,

Hi, I have been trying to enable attended transfer for callee. When the callee pressed *2, DTMF tone was heard by the caller. But when the caller pressed *2, attended transfer started. It's strange. I used two SIP phones. My Asterisk version is "Asterisk CVS-HEAD built by root@router on a i686 running Linux on 2005-06-27 06:07:18". In features.conf, I have: [featuremap]

I use ENUM lookup in my dialplan before sending calls through my PSTN trunk. One problem arises... When ENUMLOOKUP finds an SIP contact for that e164 number, Asterisk dials that contact, but when the remote server that should answer the call is down, or the IP link is down for some reason, the dial to PSTN trunk (which has the next priority) only takes place after the ring time of Dial

2013/3/27 Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>: > charles quarra wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have two functions in a module, X.foo, which is the callee, and >> Y.foo2, which calls X.foo. >> >> If i either try to run llvm::Function::eraseFromParent() on any one of >> the functions, i'll >> get this assertion error: >> >> F is

2013/3/27 Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>: > charles quarra wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I have two functions in a module, X.foo, which is the callee, and >> Y.foo2, which calls X.foo. >> >> If i either try to run llvm::Function::eraseFromParent() on any one of >> the functions, i'll >> get this assertion error: >> >> F is

Hi, I have two functions in a module, X.foo, which is the callee, and Y.foo2, which calls X.foo. If i either try to run llvm::Function::eraseFromParent() on any one of the functions, i'll get this assertion error: F is used in instruction: %"calling function" = call i32 @X.foo(i32 %read) F is used in instruction: %"calling function" = call i32 @X.foo(i32 %read) While

Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi llvm, > > 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, > which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, > for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID > and etc are ignored in the 'default' branch. Does it mean we dont > need to check them? We do need to check union. I'll add

Just nitpicking: 1) DI(F) should include a component that estimate the epi/prologue cost (frameSetupCost) which InlinedDF does not have 2) The speedup should include callsite cost associated with 'C' (call instr, argument passing): Speedup(F,C) = (DI(F) + CallCost(C) - InlinedDF(F,C))/DI(F). Otherwise the proposal looks reasonable to me. David On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:25 PM,

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 3:45 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Sanjay, > > > > On May 13, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > This is a proposal to introduce a mechanism to LLVM that uses runtime > > instrumentation to verify that a call

Hi all, I am setting up * for the first time, every thing is working fine, but I would like to implement an additional feature: Thus we have multilingual caller menu - I would like to play a little sound file to the callees to let them know in which language they should answer the incoming call, before I pass the caller through (caller should hear the normal ringing meanwhile). Is that possible?

2013/3/27 Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca>: >The common idiom to delete any Value* is: > > V->replaceAllUsesWith(UndefValue::get(V->getType()); > V->eraseFromParent(); > > Does that work for functions? You may need to make sure the 'undef' has a > pointer to function type instead of the function type. > I tried this code sample, passing the type

Hi Borja, On Jul 10, 2012, at 6:26 PM, Borja Ferrer wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know if there's a way of setting the callee-saved register list inside getCalleeSavedRegs() to make the PEI pass save/restore only one half of a register pair if the other half is not being used, instead of saving the whole pair. Here is an example of what I try to explain to make things more