similar to: [LLVMdev] Pointer to String Constant

On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:50 PM, Nyx wrote: > > I'm writing a C compiler in OCaml and I've run into a small problem. I wrote > the following piece of code to generate a pointer to a string constant, so I > could compile C expressions of the form "const char* p = "test\n";" : > > let strval = const_stringz codecontext v in > dump_value strval; >

Question 1: I am trying to get a function not to be inlined. What are llvm's rules pertaining to inlining? I have tried all of the standard gcc options for turning off inlining and they do not seem to work. Here is the sample code that I am working with: #include <stdio.h> void print_string(char* strval); int main() { char* strval = "Hello world\n"; while(1){

On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:47 PM, Talin wrote: > /// Add a pointer value > template<typename T> > void add(const T *PtrVal) { > addImpl( > reinterpret_cast<const uint32_t *>(&PtrVal), > reinterpret_cast<const uint32_t *>(&PtrVal + 1)); > } > > This violates TBAA rules and looks pretty dangerous to expose as public API.

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Talin wrote: >> >> Just out of curiosity, why not MurmurHash3 ? This page seems to >> suggest that #2 has some flaw, and #3 is better all round: >> >> https://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/ >> > The main reason is because there's no

Ok, here is the patch again... I also included fixes for the bits that originally gave my mailer fits... Two votes for orange, so I went with orange... Doing diffs in .: --- ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp.~1~ 2007-12-14 22:09:06.000000000 -0800 +++ ./lib/AsmParser/LLLexer.cpp 2007-12-15 13:02:47.000000000 -0800 @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static uint64_t HexIntToVal(const char * Result +=

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Talin wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, why not MurmurHash3 ? This page seems to >> suggest that #2 has some flaw, and #3 is better all round: >> >> https://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/ >> >> The main reason is because there's no

On Feb 13, 2012, at 2:00 AM, Talin wrote: > Just out of curiosity, why not MurmurHash3 ? This page seems to > suggest that #2 has some flaw, and #3 is better all round: > > https://sites.google.com/site/murmurhash/ > > The main reason is because there's no incremental version of 3. I think that that is a great reason. > LLVM's needs, on the other hand, are fairly

Hi, recently I took a look at ini to find a bug which made it crash at startup. While fixing the bug I realized I could do some improvements to the option reading code (espacally the action part). So I went on and here we are. This patch should make ini more robust, clean it up and fix also some more crashes I had here. Additionaly, I have a attached a second patch from Maniac which should fix

This patch introduces a handful of new options, I mentioned earlier in: http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsdev at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg02088.html See the large commit message in the follow-up for the details and rationale. I realize it's a bit larger diff - so if it's required I can split it into few smaller ones. Michal Soltys (1): APC smart driver update and new features.

>From the language guide: "The one non-intuitive notation for constants is the optional hexadecimal form of floating point constants. For example, the form 'double 0x432ff973cafa8000' is equivalent to (but harder to read than) 'double 4.5e+15'. The only time hexadecimal floating point constants are required (and the only time that they are generated by the disassembler) is

This is 2nd version of the earlier patch featuring a few new features and fixes to the apcsmart driver, following the remarks in: http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsdev at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg02294.html Major changes from v1: - handle battery.charge and battery.runtime checks at main.c level - handle "immutable but writable" conflict gracefully at driver level -

Sorry for a bit longer delay than I anticipated, I was stuffed with the work. This is the next iteration of the patch adding some functionality to apcsmart driver, and relying on 'ignorelb' recently added. Follow up from previous thread: http://www.mail-archive.com/nut-upsdev at lists.alioth.debian.org/msg02331.html Main differences is that V3 is split into many small patches, so the

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:22 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 February 2012 00:59, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > Here's my latest version of Hashing.h, which I propose to add to > llvm/ADT. > > Comments welcome and encouraged. > > > /// Adapted from MurmurHash2 by Austin Appleby > > Just out of curiosity, why not

Hi all, I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on Linux/i386. Would love to hear your comments. [Needless to say, it's all work in progress, but mostly it

OK here's a patch with the latest, including unit tests. I've also tried to make the comments clear that this is intended for the case of "generic" key types, where you are either hashing multiple data types together, or you don't know in advance what the data type will be - for cases such as strings where a tailored algorithm is available, you should use that instead of

2. update ZFS in libfsimage from illumos for pygrub diff -r 7c12aaa128e3 -r c2e11847cac0 tools/libfsimage/Rules.mk --- a/tools/libfsimage/Rules.mk Thu Oct 24 22:46:20 2013 +0100 +++ b/tools/libfsimage/Rules.mk Sat Oct 26 20:03:06 2013 +0400 @@ -2,11 +2,19 @@ include $(XEN_ROOT)/tools/Rules.mk CFLAGS += -Wno-unknown-pragmas -I$(XEN_ROOT)/tools/libfsimage/common/

On May 10, 2008, at 05:44, Mahadevan R wrote: > I'd like to announce the availability of Python bindings for LLVM. > > It is built over llvm-c, and currently exposes enough APIs to build an > in-memory IR (and dump it!). It needs LLVM 2.3 latest and Python 2.5 > (2.4 should be sufficient, but I haven't tested). Tested only on > Linux/i386. > > Would love to hear

On Nov 25, 2007, at 18:53, Jon Harrop wrote: > So my Fib program is segfaulting and I'm not sure why. I think it > might be because my declaration and use of sprintf is wrong. > > I notice llvm-gcc produces declarations containing "..." like: > > declare int %printf(sbyte*, ...) > > What is the correct way to do this? The type you want is: let sp =

So my Fib program is segfaulting and I'm not sure why. I think it might be because my declaration and use of sprintf is wrong. I notice llvm-gcc produces declarations containing "..." like: declare int %printf(sbyte*, ...) but I'm not sure how to do this so I've used: let sprintf = declare_function "sprintf" (function_type (pointer_type

I am running Fedora 8 uname -r = 2.6.24.4-64.fc8 on my box with Wine 0.9.58. When I first installed it I noticed that my CPU usage jumped and stayed at 100% with wineserver taking > 85%. I killed the wineserver process and it dropped down, however it soon jumped back up when wineserver restarted itself. I then killed it again and all related processes and disabled it from starting as a damen