similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] - Union types, replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant

On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Talin wrote: > Here's the implementation of ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( Seems basically ok, please commit. > > Two questions: > > -- Any suggestions as to an existing test I could use as a model for testing this? IS this what is causing this to be broken? $ cat t.ll @union1 = constant union { i32*, i8 } {

On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:05 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2010, at 12:38 PM, Talin wrote: > > > Here's the implementation of > ConstantUnion::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant(). No tests yet :( > > Seems basically ok, please commit. > > I suppose that means that I'll have to send in the info to get commit access then :(

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

OK here's a new patch. Additional comments below. On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > LangRef.html: > > + <dt><b>Union constants</b></dt> > + <dd>Union constants are represented with notation similar to a structure > with > + a single element - that is, a single typed element

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

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

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

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 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

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:

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Talin wrote: > 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? Either way works for me. > 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. Right, please

Hi LLVMdev members I found something strange in ConstantExpr::replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant() function. in lib/VMCore/Constants.cpp file 2118 if (getOpcode() == Instruction::GetElementPtr) { 2119 SmallVector<Constant*, 8> Indices; 2120 Constant *Pointer = getOperand(0); 2121 Indices.reserve(getNumOperands()-1); 2122 if (Pointer == From) Pointer = To; 2123 2124 for

What is the use of the third parameter to the replaceUsesOfWithOnConstant function? The documentation only states the uses of the first 2 parameters. Thanks, Regards, Arushi -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110617/a5115ca8/attachment.html>

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

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, Thanks so much at first. > Here are some observations: > > > for C level, > > > > char a[]="global string test"; > > for(i=0;i<strlen(a);i++){ > > a[i]= a[i]^RANDMON; > > } > > If you compile this C code, "global string test" will occur in the program > binary, so you have not obfuscated anything. You can

On Mar 15, 2010, at 2:30 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > 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

> > > I don't agree, but this is because I fail to see how the two > representations (the GCC-like one you've outlined and the current one with > the proposed extension) aren't completely isomorphic. Your proposal is: > > Lots of data structures are completely isomorphic in the same way, and in plenty of those cases, one is completely unusable, and the other

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

The dump from the function I'm running: define %object_structure @0() { entry: ret %object_structure { i8 0, %object_union [double 5.000000e+00, double false] } } the only output I get after the runFunction() call is: UNREACHABLE executed! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection' on function '@0' I just noticed that my union seems to look like