similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, attempt 2

On Jan 6, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Talin wrote: > This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. Cool. When proposing an IR extension, it is usually best to start with a LangRef.html patch so that we can discuss the semantics of the extension. Please do write this before you get much farther. I assume that you want unions usable in the same situations as a struct. However, how do "constant

Quick question - should unions enforce that all member types are unique? I realize that a union of { i32, i32 } doesn't make sense, but should the code actually forbid this? As far as constants go, as long as the initializer is an exact match for one of the member types, it should be no problem. On Fri, Jan 8, 2010 at 11:00 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On

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:

ping... On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

On Feb 9, 2010, at 4:28 PM, Talin wrote: > ping... Hi Talin, sorry for the delay. FWIW, it's usually best to trickle pieces of a feature in and build it up over time, otherwise your patch just gets larger and larger. LangRef.html: + <dt><b>Union constants</b></dt> + <dd>Union constants are represented with notation similar to a structure with + a

Hello, I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. Hopefully I'm not stepping on Talin's toes by posting this, it's a fairly straightforward adaptation of the code for structs just above. Tim. -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. --------------

Hi All, I've noticed the union type in the language manual [1] but it seems it's not used too much. According to the manual, the code: union { int a; double b; } a; Could be compiled to: %union.anon = type union { i32, double } @a = common global %union.anon zeroinitializer, align 8 ; <%union.anon*> [#uses=0] But when I try to assemble it, I get: $ llvm-as union.ll

On Wednesday 10 February 2010 14:58:58 Dan Gohman wrote: > On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:42 PM, David Greene wrote: > > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:58:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make > >> sense. > > > > Ok. The consequence is that a number of functions will have to change to > > propagate

On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:42 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:58:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > >> I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make sense. > > Ok. The consequence is that a number of functions will have to change to > propagate this bit, analogous to what happens with isVolatile. It's > essentially what we do

On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 01:15:30PM +0100, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi All, > > Which implies no one was expecting a UnionType there... > > Also, if I generate the object code directly, llc fails too... > > Is there any plan to implement the union type? The work-around is quite ugly... Sorry to Renato for getting two copeis of this, I cocked up the reply first time. Anyway,

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

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:51:47AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a > ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. I've been continuing plugging gaps as I find them, which might not be the best way to solve this problem, but it has produced something that seems to do roughly what I expect. I've split it into

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

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

I am curious how the efforts were progressing in implementing a union type. I am will to try to contribute somewhat to this even though I am perhaps somewhat of a beginner with LLVM(so it might be nice to collaborate with someone). I had a look at some of the subsystems that would require changes though I may have missed some. I however have a few questions- 1) What is ComputeLinearIndex for

Hello, My understanding of the discussions about union types was that there was trouble working out how unions should work. Have the issues been resolved? If so, could you post a summary? Thanks, Dan On Aug 2, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Carter Cheng wrote: > I am curious how the efforts were progressing in implementing a > union type. I am will to try to contribute somewhat to this even