similar to: [LLVMdev] Prescriptions

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

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. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cbindings.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7269 bytes Desc: not available URL:

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go > there" is taken to mean "if this instruction has no effect other than > a possible trap, the instruction and the trapping behavior *must* be > preserved". What exactly would the semantics be if the

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >> has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring >> out what to do for the case where the label is

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >>> has a goto statement, similar to

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >>> It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go >>> there" is taken to

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.

<copied from opensolaris-dicuss as this probably belongs here.> I kept on trying to migrate my pool with children (see previous threads) and had the (bad) idea to try the -d option on the receive part. The system reboots immediately. Here is the log in /var/adm/messages Feb 8 16:07:09 amber unix: [ID 836849 kern.notice] Feb 8 16:07:09 amber ^Mpanic[cpu1]/thread=ffffff014ba86e40: Feb 8

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> It would be unfortunate in a way if "this instruction can trap and go >> there" is taken to mean "if this instruction has no effect other than >> a possible trap, the instruction and the

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: (A similar esoteric use case is: "which of >> the following two types is larger, 3 x int32 or 2 x {}*? -- i.e. the union >> problem.) The size of a union can be compiled into a ConstantExpr. i.e., (sizeof(T1)

On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Nick Lewycky<nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > > > 2009/8/28 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >> >> This is by design, of course, (CreateDistinctItem does not return the >> same value given the same caller-visible global state) but I see no >> way to declare a function that: >> >> 1. Returns a

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, yes.  See PR4542.  Progress has been made recently > though -- the optimizers are now ready.  The main things left to do > is to update the documentation and update the testsuite to account > for the change in the meaning of a module without a targetdata string. > > Dan > > So

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >>> To fix that and compile C++ correctly while aggressively >>> devirtualizing it, we would need

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not >> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and >> llvm.invariant.end calls for it. > > Some of us were talking about this apropos your

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >>> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not >>> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> To fix that and compile C++ correctly while aggressively >> devirtualizing it, we would need to apply "noalias" to the result of >> placement-new in all cases, even when placement-new

2009/11/9 Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com>: > > 1. Conversions to/from other integer types: right now, integer type > conversions are always explicity specified as either a trunc, a sext, > or a zext.  Since the size of intp is not known at IR generation time, > you can't know whether a conversion to/from intp truncates or extends. > Now that there are

Good morning, Kenneth FYI, Here is my patch for lib/Transforms/IPO/PartialSpecialization.cpp. It works with my several applications but it is not widely tested. The pass had a critical bug, ... when a specialized function is created, all callers are modified. Even if a caller is not needed, to be malformed. My fix includes to examine each of callers to be modified. See also the discussion;

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

Oops. Thanks... I totally missed that. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Eli Friedman<eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Kenneth Uildriks<kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm running into a completely different problem.  When I do: >> >> opt -load LowerFastInvoke.o -help >> >> I get the message: >> >>