similar to: [LLVMdev] know if individual LLVM's Instruction has a result, and how to obtain it?

Hi Chuck, > Most LLVM IR instructions have a result field, according to the Language Reference. > > I want to know, for all LLVM Instructions, is there an easy and consistent way > to know if the current Inst has a result field? > And if yes, what is the best way to obtain it? the instruction is the result! So everywhere you though you needed to use Instruction->getResult(),

Hao Shen wrote: > Dear all, > > I compiled c program with llvm and found something strange with > function pointer as following small example . > > ------------- In C Code -------------- > float a (int value) { > return value + 1; > }; > > typedef float (*funcptr_t) (int); > > funcptr_t get_ptr(funcptr_t p) { > return p; > } > > float

Dear all, I compiled c program with llvm and found something strange with function pointer as following small example . ------------- In C Code -------------- float a (int value) { return value + 1; }; typedef float (*funcptr_t) (int); funcptr_t get_ptr(funcptr_t p) { return p; } float result = get_ptr(a)(4); ------------- In LLVM Code -------------- %4 = call float (i32)* (float

LLVMers, I need to intercept all LLVM IR instructions that will write into memory and start to do analysis on these instructions. In addition to StoreInst, what are all other IRs that will write into memory? E.g. char * ptr = malloc(...); ///... //with use(s) of ptr later The LLVM IR for the above code would be: %0 = tail call noalias i8* @malloc(i32 137) nounwind ///... //

We'd like to propose a scheme to attach "operand bundles" to call and invoke instructions. This is based on the offline discussion mentioned in http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2015-July/088748.html. # Motivation & Definition Our motivation behind this is to track the state required for deoptimization (described briefly later) through the LLVM pipeline as a

Introduction: We would like to add new keyword to 'sdiv'\'udiv' instructions i.e. 'no-overflow'. This is the updated solution devised in the discussion: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-October/118257.html The proposed keywords: "nof" stands for 'no-overflow' Syntax: <result> = sdiv nof <ty> <op1>,

The langref says for the 'add' instruction: Syntax: <result> = add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ; yields {ty}:result <result> = nuw nsw add <ty> <op1>, <op2> ;

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > To: "Sanjoy Das" <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Philip Reames" > <listmail at philipreames.com>, "Chandler Carruth" > <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Nick

Hey all, Could anyone give me any hint on how llvm-g++ translates the "__attribute__" annotations (supported by GCC)? (Has GCC already implemented the support for the C++0x attributes?) Suppose a class definition as below: template <typename T> class __attribute__((may_alias)) list { ... }; I understand that each particular attribute may be handled differently. Assuming that

Hi, The language reference uses "::" many places where it seems it should be using ".. code-block:: llvm". The result is that Sphinx does not colorize these samples. Should I fix this? Or is it purposeful? Also, anybody but me that has noticed that Sphinx does not always colorize things even if you put the proper ".. code-block:: llvm" in front? If it is a known

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Arnold Schwaighofer <arnold.schwaighofer at gmail.com> wrote: > Tail calls through function pointers should work.If not please send a testcase. > > I just added the two examples from the bug (1392) that calls for true > tail call support. They work on my machine (-tailcallopt needs to be > enabled) ;) > > That would be commit 56127. >

On Sun, Nov 24, 2013 at 10:19 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Hi, > > The language reference uses "::" many places where it seems it should be > using ".. code-block:: llvm". The result is that Sphinx does not colorize > these samples. > > Should I fix this? Or is it purposeful? > Could you give an example of what you are

Tail calls through function pointers should work.If not please send a testcase. I just added the two examples from the bug (1392) that calls for true tail call support. They work on my machine (-tailcallopt needs to be enabled) ;) That would be commit 56127. regards On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Arnold implemented tail call. We

John, Thanks for the reply. I agree with your comments that the "Memory" LLVM Spec refers to doesn't include stack. Let me leverage a bit further: If I need to work on high-level IRs (not machine dependent, not in the code-gen stage), is it reasonable to assume that ALL LLVM IRs that have a result field will have potential to write stack? E.g. <result> =

Hi, I want to compute the bitwise 'and' between two values of type int1:  %x = and %a, %b  . Which is the LLVM instruction that creates this? I only found the APInt class, whose constructor is:  APInt(unsigned numBits, uint64_t val, bool isSigned = false) and which provides the bitwise AND operation: APInt  llvm::APIntOps::And (const APInt &LHS, const APInt &RHS)   Bitwise

hi, i'm new in R and i need some help. Please, ¿do you know a function how can process cross tables for many variables and show the result in one table who look like this?: +----------------------------------------------------+ |------------------ | X variable | |----------------- | Xop1 | Xop2 | Xop3|.....| +----------------------------------------------------+ |Yvar1 |

Our architecture has 1-bit boolean predicate registers. I've defined comparison def NErrb : InstTCE<(outs I1Regs:$op3), (ins I32Regs:$op1,I32Regs:$op2), "", [(set I1Regs:$op3, (setne I32Regs:$op1, I32Regs:$op2))]>; But then I end up having the following bug: Code %0 = zext i8 %data to i32 %1 = zext i16 %crc to i32 %2 = xor i32 %1, %0 %3 = and i32 %2, 1 %4 =

I'm trying to implement *MUL_LOHI for my processor. My processor has mulxss (e.g.) that gives the 32 high bits of a 64 bit multiply. I tried this in ios2ISelDAGToDAG.cpp: /// Mul/Div with two results case ISD::SMUL_LOHI: case ISD::UMUL_LOHI: { SDValue Op1 = Node->getOperand(0); SDValue Op2 = Node->getOperand(1); AddToISelQueue(Op1);

On 1/21/11 2:50 PM, Chuck Zhao wrote: > I need to figure out all LLVM Instructions that may write to memory. > > In http://llvm.org/docs/tutorial/OCamlLangImpl7.html, it mentions that > "In LLVM, all memory accesses are explicit with load/store > instructions, and it is carefully designed not to have (or need) an > "address-of" operator." > > I take