similar to: [LLVMdev] Why llvm function name is different with . and ..

Its seems an bug in langref, is there anyone have an look or give an explain? 2010/5/5, 罗勇刚(Yonggang Luo) <luoyonggang at gmail.com>: > declare i8 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i8.p0i8( i8* <ptr>, i8 <delta> ) > declare i16 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i16.p0i16( i16* <ptr>, i16 <delta> ) > declare i32 @llvm.atomic.load.max.i32.p0i32( i32* <ptr>, i32

Hi George, Have you considered changing our existing behavior to match GCC's builtin_object_size instead of adding a new parameter? That may be simpler overall. There's also a clear upgrade strategy -- fold every old style call to "<min> ? 0 : 1". You probably already know this, but GCC folds builtin_object_size(0, 0) to -1 and builtin_object_size(0, 2) to 0. We'll

I have been working on a patch to add support for max/min reductions in LoopVectorize. One of the comments that came up in review is that the implementation could be simplified (and less fragile) if max and min intrinsics were recognized rather than looking for compare-select sequences. The suggestion was to change compare-selects into max and min intrinsic calls during instcombine. The

Hi George, On Mon, Jan 2, 2017 at 10:41 AM, George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the comments! > >> Have you considered changing our existing behavior to match GCC's >> builtin_object_size instead of adding a new parameter > > Yup! My issue with turning `i1 %min` into `i8 %flags` is that > __builtin_object_size would get

Hello, I have a question, what is wrong with the following code? declare void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64*, i64*, i8, i32, i1) nounwind ... call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64* %19, i64* %21, i8 %17, i32 0, i1 false) ... According to the compiler this is the error, but I seem to miss where exactly my fault is. Intrinsic prototype has incorrect number of arguments! void (i64*,

On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:03 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question, what is wrong with the following code? > > declare void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64*, i64*, i8, i32, i1) nounwind > > ... > > call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64* %19, i64* %21, i8 %17, i32 0, i1 false) > > ... > > > According to the compiler this is the

Full_Name: Christian Marquardt Version: 2.1.0 OS: Linux (Redhat 9) Submission from: (NULL) (151.170.240.10) Following the advice of a reader of R-help, I would now like to submit this as a bug report: Say we have x = seq(1,3, by = 0.01) y = exp(x) Plotting and reversing linear axis is fine plot(x,y) plot(x,y, ylim = c(30,1)) as is a usual log-plot: plot(x,y, log =

On Sep 7, 2010, at 8:03 AM, F van der Meeren wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question, what is wrong with the following code? > > declare void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64*, i64*, i8, i32, i1) nounwind > > ... > > call void @llvm.memcpy.p0i64.p0i64.i8(i64* %19, i64* %21, i8 %17, i32 0, i1 false) > > ... > > > According to the compiler this is the

The pointers must always be i8* the alignment is independent and is controlled by the attributes on the arguments in the call to memcpy. ~Craig On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:45 PM, ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi > > > 2018-01-30 15:36 GMT+08:00 ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com>: > >> Hi >> Thanks ! >> so for this example >>

Hi 2018-01-30 15:36 GMT+08:00 ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com>: > Hi > Thanks ! > so for this example > void foo(X &src, X &dst) { > dst = src; > } > and the IR: > > define void @foo(X&, X&)(%struct.X* dereferenceable(8), %struct.X* > dereferenceable(8)) #0 { > %3 = alloca %struct.X*, align 8 > %4 = alloca %struct.X*,

My problem with HFSC tc command is ... tc command''s HFSC have a lot parameter with 4 curve type SC curve -> umax dmax rate LS curve -> umax dmax rate RT curve -> umax dmax rate UL curve -> umax dmax rate so i''dont know which parameter are appropriate for my test case such real time class which curve are appropriate and good working result. my assumption about

Hi, The ldN like intrinsics (including all the ld1xN, ldN, ldNlane, ldNr, stN, stNlane) can use any pointer types. The definition (in IntrinsicsAArch64.td) of such intrinsics use 'LLVMAnyPointerType', which means we can pass any pointer type to such intrinsics. E.g. I tried following case ld2.ll: define { <4 x i32>, <4 x i32> } @test(float* %ptr) { %vld2 = call {

Hi all, There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: ... 1. %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre, %entry.for.end_crit_edge ], [ %sum.safe_r42, %for.body ] 2. %call9 = call i32 @gettimeofday(%struct.timeval* %end,

Hi All, I have a program that uses C++ STL a lot. To have the source code for STL functions, I undefined "_GLIBCXX_EXTERN_TEMPLATE" in c++config.h. In spite of this, after compilation (via clang) and linking (via llvm-ld), the resulting bitcode contains a few declared functions (with no definitions). My question is: In the scenario where some function definitions are missing in a llvm

tl;dr: We'd like to add a bit to @llvm.objectsize to make it optionally be conservative when it's handed a null pointer. Happy Wednesday! We're trying to fix PR23277, which is a bug about how clang+LLVM treat __builtin_object_size when it's given a null pointer. For compatibility with GCC, clang would like to be able to hand back a conservative result (e.g. (size_t)-1), but the

Hi Craig Thank you very much ！ 2018-01-30 16:11 GMT+08:00 Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com>: > The pointers must always be i8* the alignment is independent and is > controlled by the attributes on the arguments in the call to memcpy. > > ~Craig > > On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 11:45 PM, ma jun <jun.parser at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi >> >>

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates >> stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies >> on stores in an end BB though.

On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:12 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > There might be a bug in DeadStoreElimination.cpp. This pass eliminates > stores backwards aggressively in an end BB. It does not check dependencies > on stores in an end BB though. For example, in this code snippet: >   ... > 1.  %sum.safe_r47.pre-phi = phi i64* [ %sum.safe_r47.pre,

It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not visit memory or capture the pointer parameter. On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at

If int_guard_load returns a pointer based on the passed-in pointer, it captures it (at least according to the definition of "capture" which NoCapture uses). -Eli On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 2:26 PM, Zeng Bin <ezengbin at gmail.com> wrote: > It does not do anything. It is an abstract function which transforms a > pointer and returns another pointer of the same type. It does not