similar to: [LLVMdev] Union types

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,

Last time I looked at the union stuff, I was trying to decide how to implement TargetData.cpp for unions, and whether or not to copy the way structs handled memory layout. Currently structs have an auxilliary data structure (StructLayout) that is used to cache the overall size of the struct and the offset of each member. In the case of unions, it doesn't need the offsets, since they are always

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

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

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. --------------

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

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

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:

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

This patch adds a UnionType to DerivedTypes.h. It also adds code to the bitcode reader / writer and the assembly parser for the new type, as well as a tiny .ll test file in test/Assembler. It does not contain any code related to code generation or type layout - I wanted to see if this much was acceptable before I proceeded any further. Unlike my previous patch, in which the Union type was

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

Hi all, I am working on my Master's project in security and I am trying to iterate over the argument list of the function. Basically I need to do following things : 1. Check data type of each argument of the argument list of the function. 2. Based on its data type like character array or integer array, pointer, int, char, take different action. 3. I have added following code to check its

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

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

The Constants.cpp file returns a ConstantAggregateZero object when you pass it a c"\000" string. Here is the code: Constant *ConstantArray::get(const ArrayType *Ty, const std::vector<Constant*> &V) { // If this is an all-zero array, return a ConstantAggregateZero object if (!V.empty()) { Constant *C = V[0]; if (!C->isNullValue())

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 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

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

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

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: > >> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >> the union and then bitcast it to access the fields contained