similar to: [LLVMdev] Some additions to the C bindings

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it > required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings.  I > hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it. Here's the revised version of the patch

On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks > <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it >> required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I >> hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the >> trunk.

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it.  Here's the revised version of the patch Hi Kenneth! I wouldn't say that I'm the best reviewer, but I've been doing some work with the c bindings recently so

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it.  Here's the revised version of the patch > > Hi

I recently reimplemented the Attributes class. It now hides the data representation inside of an opaque class. In the near future, we will be extending this class to encompass many other attributes. The changes pose one problem, however. The C-API still uses the old data representation for passing along the Attributes class. In particular, these two functions: LLVMAttribute

On Oct 11, 2009, at 1:25 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> Isn't LLVMHasInitializer just LLVMGetInitializer(x) != 0? > > Last time I tried that, LLVMGetInitializer threw an assertion when the > global variable didn't actually have one. Has this changed? No idea. It

On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 3:09 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > Isn't LLVMHasInitializer just  LLVMGetInitializer(x) != 0? Last time I tried that, LLVMGetInitializer threw an assertion when the global variable didn't actually have one. Has this changed?

Hi Bill, On 18/10/12 10:35, Bill Wendling wrote: > I recently reimplemented the Attributes class. It now hides the data representation inside of an opaque class. In the near future, we will be extending this class to encompass many other attributes. > > The changes pose one problem, however. The C-API still uses the old data representation for passing along the Attributes class. In

The LLVMAddFunctionAttr and LLVMRemoveFunctionAttr are busted: they actually set the return value's attributes, not the function's attributes. There seems to be no C API for actually setting the function attributes. LLVMGetFunctionAttr, however, does correctly return the function attributes, not the return value's attributes. There is no C API for getting the return value

On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > > IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. > The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but when I set an attribute on the parameter with index zero, it gets applied to

On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:33, james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. >> The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. > > Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually passes :) On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's the patch for real this time :) >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here's a work

OK here's the patch for real this time :) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" > does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, > I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. > > -- > -- Talin

I've made all the suggested changes - however, I'm having a bit of problem running the tests. I started "make check" and several hours later it had only made it through about 1/3 of the tests. I'm not sure what the deal is. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK

Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. -- -- Talin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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>

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 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