similar to: [LLVMdev] How to copy a Function

On May 17, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi, > > I wanted to backup a Function before it is optimized. The Function > class disallows assignment operations as it comments: > Function(const Function&); // DO NOT IMPLEMENT > void operator=(const Function&); // DO NOT IMPLEMENT > Is there a way to construct a copy from an existing Function? >

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >>> ... "If an address is written

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =

Hi LLVM, In lib/VMCare/Verifier.cpp::visitInstruction, we have such code 1287 // Check that the return value of the instruction is either void or a legal 1288 // value type. 1289 Assert1(I.getType() == Type::getVoidTy(I.getContext()) || 1290 I.getType()->isFirstClassType() 1291 || ((isa<CallInst>(I) || isa<InvokeInst>(I)) 1292 &&

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: >> >> "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this >> model places only one restriction on

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 6, 2010, at 3:37 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Which semantics is better? I guess both are fine because if we assume >> these two def's are same, then it is 0 as >> 'ConstantFoldBinaryInstruction', while if we assume they are different >> then it is equal to

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, David Gardner <daveg at xmos.com> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou <at> seas.upenn.edu> writes: >> The documents say that all the aa analysis are chained, and give an >> example like opt -basicaa -ds-aa -licm. In this case, does ds-aa >> automatically call basicaa for the case when ds-aa can only return >> MayAlias? This

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: > > "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this > model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what > is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a

Hi, Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any relevant features. 2.7 added 'operand' that can access each operand from a value. external operand : llvalue -> int -> llvalue = "llvm_operand" Does this binding also expose a primitive to return how many operands a given value has? I need

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, > ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other > threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other threads > must eventually see the write"... It's supposed to mean that if you have a something

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> On

Hi all, http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should be same structurally. I tested the following code, %rt = type { %rt* } %rt1 = type { %rt* } define i32 @main() nounwind { entry: %0 = alloca %rt ;

On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 4:55 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 3, 2012, at 1:53 PM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> I see. I asked the question because LLVM provides several alias >> analysis, and I was wondering how to decide which one should be used >> for compiling most programs. >> >> I think the basicaa is the default one, but by looking

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >> ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other >> threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other

Hi, Some instructions are not implemented in the interpreter. For example, extractvalue, insertvalue, load/store aggregate pointers, bitcast between vectors and ints. Is this only the limitation of the current release? or is there any technical reason that the interpreter has to omit these instructions. -- Jianzhou