similar to: [LLVMdev] help

> In the insrtuction > %1 = load i32** %y_addr, align 4 > what is the meaning of align 4?? > Can anyone explain? >From http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_load : "The optional constant align argument specifies the alignment of the operation (that is, the alignment of the memory address). A value of 0 or an omitted align argument means that the operation has the preferential

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> In the insrtuction >> %1 = load i32** %y_addr, align 4 >> what is the meaning of align 4?? >> Can anyone explain? >> > >From http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#i_load : > > "The optional constant align argument specifies the alignment of the > operation (that is, the alignment of the memory address). A value of 0

Sir ,how can I get the variable %2 in instruction %2 = sub nsw i32 1, %y If I am using getName() function then it outputs the null string. How can I get the original name? Regards, Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100623/37038c90/attachment.html>

I'm just diving into LLVM. What does it mean when LoadInst::getAlignment() returns 0? Unknown alignment, use default alignment of the type for the load, something else? In particular, clang appears to set to 0 the alignment of the load instruction that results from accessing the lvalue returned by a call. Is this the intended behavior? For example: const double &foo(void *p); double

Hi Duncan, thanks for your comments. >> First, consider this function: >> #include <stdint.h> >> uint64_t foo(uint64_t *bar) { >> *bar = 42; >> return (uint64_t)bar & 3; >> } >> >> Which is compiled to >> define i64 @foo(i64* %bar) nounwind uwtable ssp { >> store i64 42, i64* %bar, align 8 >>

Can anyone tell me, In the following instruction %"struct.std::locale::facet" = type { i32 (...)**, i32 } what does i32 (...)** means? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100718/3f9fe5fe/attachment.html>

Hi Clemens, > thanks for your comments. > >>> First, consider this function: >>> #include <stdint.h> >>> uint64_t foo(uint64_t *bar) { >>> *bar = 42; >>> return (uint64_t)bar & 3; >>> } >>> >>> Which is compiled to >>> define i64 @foo(i64* %bar) nounwind uwtable ssp {

Hi Clemens, > I'm instrumenting IR by replacing loads and stores by calls to a library, which > I have compiled to bitcode such that inlining can take place. My problem is: If > I could retain the alignment information on the load/store, this would open many > optimization opportunities after inlining. Unfortunately, I don't know how. > > After thinking about it, and

Hi Duncan, >>> and instcombine adds the explicit alignment according to >>>> the langref (pref alignment). >>> >>> Without an explicit alignment means the ABI alignment in the case of >>> loads/stores. >> >> Yes, that second step was clear. Assuming you meant the "preferential >> alignment", according to the langref.

Hi folks, Assuming that I'm writing a pass and that for bizarre reasons I need to programmatically do the equivalent of a C/C++ sizeof on a Value (or a Type, it doesn't matter which really), yielding a result in bytes, what is the known-safe way to do this? I notice that doing something like struct thingy { ... some stuff ... }; ... printf("Size = %d",

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >> rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? >> "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value

Hi all, I'm instrumenting IR by replacing loads and stores by calls to a library, which I have compiled to bitcode such that inlining can take place. My problem is: If I could retain the alignment information on the load/store, this would open many optimization opportunities after inlining. Unfortunately, I don't know how. After thinking about it, and trying different things, I now

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >>> rules. Do the rules tell

On Feb 11, 2013, at 1:03 PM, Sergei Larin <slarin at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I have to resurrect an ancient question regarding scheduling boundaries. > > You might remember the reason for introduction of CanHandleTerminators to > ScheduleDAGInstrs. In short, Hexagon is currently uses DAG construction > method (buildSchedGraph) for several purposes,

How can I get list of its predecessor basic blocks from a basic block? --Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100625/21c52063/attachment.html>

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> I

A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: text Size: 1538 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/attachments/19980220/040a76f5/attachment.pl

Two easy questions after having read the LARTC HOWTO document (which by the way is a *fantastic* document. Congratulations to all who contributed!) First is: Can I prioritise my "drops" on incoming traffic when the link is overloaded. ie instead of just tail dropping, can I "prefer" to drop certain classes of traffic? If so, do I do this by setting up, say, a HTB tree

%0 = icmp eq i32 %y, 0 In the above instruction how can i know that the comparison is equality comparison?? --Rajwinder Singh -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100628/8d8e5cb1/attachment.html>

I made a few updates to OggPCM2 http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/OggPCM2 reflecting the latest discussions. Could everyone have a look at it and see if they agree. Otherwise, what do you feel should be changed? Anyone wants to speak in support of chunked PCM? For all those that are just tired of this mess like me, please express yourself in the new spec I created: OggPCM3