similar to: [LLVMdev] How to produce a "Intrinsic Function" call instruction?

A lot of us wouldn't be here without him. DEC made good, really reliable hardware. mark <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2011/020711-kenneth-olsen-dec-obit.html>

Hi all, We somewhat recently created/updated element-wise unordered-atomic versions of the memcpy, memmove, and memset memory intrinsics: Memcpy: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL305558 Memmove: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307796 Memset: https://reviews.llvm.org/rL307854 These intrinsics are semantically similar to the regular versions. The main difference is that the underlying operation is performed

Several instruction set architectures include arithmetic operations that can trap on overflow, or support this feature with a separate trap-on-overflow-flag instruction (such as the x86 INTO instruction). I am adding a back-end to the Open Dylan compiler to generate LLVM IR. The original back-end, which generates x86 machine code, makes use of the INTO instruction, and the runtime turns the

Hi guys, I just noticed that the LLVM has some node for signed/unsigned type( like udiv, sdiv), but why the ADD, SUB do not have the counter part sadd, uadd? best kevin

On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Peter S. Housel wrote: > Several instruction set architectures include arithmetic operations that can trap on overflow, or support this feature with a separate trap-on-overflow-flag instruction (such as the x86 INTO instruction). > > > I am adding a back-end to the Open Dylan compiler to generate LLVM IR. The original back-end, which generates x86

After chatting on IRC, Peter wants a very specific interrupt (int4 on x86). I suggested he add a new llvm.x86.int(i32) intrinsic, and use the existing branch on llvm.sadd.with.overflow intrinsic. The x86 backend can then turn jo+int4 into into when reasonable. -Chris On Aug 9, 2010, at 5:45 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 9, 2010, at 10:44 AM, Peter S. Housel wrote: > >>

Hi all, I have this problem: I'm using LLVM's C++ API, mostly `IRBuilder<>` to generate code. Some of the generated code is just storing constant data to a location provided as a function argument. Something like `ir_builder.CreateStore(get_default_data(), ptrValue)` where `get_default_data()` may return a `ConstantArray` of `i8` and `ptrValue` is a function argument. Looking

I'm interested in using @llvm.experimental.vector.reduce.smax/umax to implement runtime overflow checking for vectors. Here's an example checked addition, without vectors, and then I'll follow the example with what I would do for checked addition with vectors. Frontend code (zig): export fn entry() void { var a: i32 = 1; var b: i32 = 2; var x = a + b; } LLVM IR code:

Dear R users, Would it be difficult to change the code of stepAIC (from the MASS library) to use AICc instead of AIC? It would be great to know of someone has tried this already. Best wishes Christoph.

Hi Sanjoy, Response/thoughts below... On Aug 19, 2017, at 3:13 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com<mailto:sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com>> wrote: Hi Daniel, On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Daniel Neilson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Cons: One more attribute to check when implementing a pass that

The IR update to allow vector types was here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D57090 ...we didn't update the docs at that time because it was not clear what the backend would do with that, but that might've changed with some of the more recent patches. On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 1:42 AM Craig Topper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think I understand your

Hi everyone, We seem to have allowed our documented target-independent intrinsics to acquire a somewhat-haphazard naming system, and I think we should standardize on one convention. All of the intrinsics have 'llvm.' as a prefix, and some also have some additional prefix 'llvm.dbg.', 'llvm.eh.', 'llvm.experimental.', etc., but after that we lose consistency. When

On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 6:25 PM Simon Pilgrim <llvm-dev at redking.me.uk> wrote: > The add/sub (+mul) overflow intrinsics are being updated to support > vectors to match the related add/sub saturation intrinsics. We haven't > updated the docs yet as legalization, vectorization and various minor bits > of plumbing still need to be finished before it can be officially supported

Hi Pete, > Or do you mean that the result of an add may not even be defined? In that case would reading it be considered UB in the case where the overflow bit was set? Yeah, this is the case I'm worried about: that for example sadd.with.overflow(INT_MAX, 1) might be designed to return { poison, true } instead of giving a useful result in the first element of the struct. John

Hello, We are looking to adjust the font size of the axis annotation on the graph that results from use of the metaplot() function. Metaplot seems to respond to cex and cex.lab to change those graphical parameters, but it doesn't respond to cex.axis. Is there a way to work around this by creating a customized x-axis, and if so, how? Thanks for all your help. Syntax is below. Best, Dawn

>> In other words, abandoning overflow detection makes the >> duplication of types redundant, while requiring it would be a >> great burden on CPUs that don't have overflow exception hardware. > >Yes, you're right. This has been a desired change for quite some time >now. Unfortunately, its a huge impact to nearly every part of LLVM. We >will

When I change the option 'i' to the letter 'a' is everything as designed. Why is 'i' at this location the problem? ******************************** diff -Nurb dovecot-2.2.16rc1/src/util/rawlog.c dovecot-2.2.16rc1.build/src/util/rawlog.c --- dovecot-2.2.16rc1/src/util/rawlog.c 2015-03-04 13:49:28.000000000 +0100 +++ dovecot-2.2.16rc1.build/src/util/rawlog.c 2015-03-11

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 03:18:00PM +0200, Marc Ordinas i Llopis wrote: > I'm currently looking at LLVM as a possible back-end to a dynamic > programming system (in the tradition of Smalltalk) we are developing. Neat! > I have read most of the llvmdev archives, and I'm aware that some > things are 'planned' but not implemented yet. We are willing to > contribute

CGP also relies on the add being a simple two's complement add, since it will transform define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %add = add i64 %b, %a %cmp = icmp ult i64 %add, %a store i1 %cmp, i1* %res_i1 store i64 %add, i64* %res_i64 ret void } to define void @test1(i64 %a, i64 %b, i64* %res_i64, i1* %res_i1) { entry: %uadd.overflow = call

Hello, I have the rawlog enabled according to the manual:http://wiki2.dovecot.org/Debugging/Rawlog Without -i everything is wonderful, a coredump is with the -i parameter created **************************************** service imap-postlogin { executable = script-login -d rawlog -i user = vmail } **************************************** GNU gdb (GDB) 7.4.1-debian Copyright (C) 2012