similar to: [LLVMdev] vestiges of multiple return values

Hi to all Authors@R: c(person("fooa","foob", role = c("aut","cre"), email = "fooa.foob@fooc.de"), person("foo1","foo2", role = c("ctb"), email = "foo1.foo2@foo3.de")) Author: fooa foob, with contributions from foo1 foo2 using r CMD check --as-cran .. (R 3.1

I'm seeing some funny behavior when using methods (the older S3 type) and having variables that start with the same letter. I have a vague recollection of reading something about this once but now can't seem to find anything in the documentation. Any explanation, or a link to the proper documentation, if it does exist, would be appreciated. Thanks, Aaron Rendahl University of

On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language > reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are > there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? > > There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when > compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: > >

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:06 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 10/10/13 10:43 AM, Hongxu Chen wrote: > >> Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language >> reference(http://llvm.org/**docs/LangRef.html#switch-**instruction<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction>) >> page, are >> there additional rules

Function's have three kinds of optional data: prefix data, prologue data, and personalities. We don't have a consistent way of storing this data, IMO. This RFC discusses a new way of managing optional data that makes llvm::Function cleaner, more consistent, and a little smaller. What do we do currently? ======================== Prefix and prologue data are attached to Functions via

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > On 30 March 2011 19:08, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > llvm.gc.declare(alloca, meta). This intrinsic marks an alloca as a > garbage > > collection root. It can occur anywhere within a function, and lasts > either > > until the end of the function, or a until matching call to

I'm trying to cross-compile LLVM with build=, host=target=. I'm using the following packages from Debian lenny: mingw32 4.2.1.dfsg-1 mingw32-binutils 2.18.50-20080109-1 mingw32-runtime 3.13-1 The first problem I hit was when I configured with CC, CXX, AR and RANLIB set to mingw cross-tools, but forgot to specify NM as well. This resulted in a load of warnings that scrolled off the

I've always found the name ComputeMaskedBits a bit unintuitive, and since r154011 it's even worse because there is no masking going on whatsoever: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120402/140280.html Is there any appetite for a global rename to ComputeKnownBits? Or any other better names? Thanks, Jay.

Hi, I've just tried to run the test-suite, for the first time in ages. It stops rather abruptly with: $ make TEST=nightly report report.html /home/jay/llvm/local/bin/llvm-gcc -I/home/jay/llvm/gitobjdir/projects/test-suite/SingleSource/UnitTests -I/home/jay/svn/llvm-project/test-suite/trunk/SingleSource/UnitTests -I/home/jay/git/llvm/projects/test-suite/include -I../../include

Hi, this question might be a bit silly: apart from the language reference(http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#switch-instruction) page, are there additional rules for a regular llvm frontend to generate llvm IRs? There are a few cases that I got from clang/llvm-gcc/dragonegg when compiling *C* source code into llvm IR: 1. It seems that there is ONLY ONE ReturnInst(and NO InvokeInst) for such llvm

(Resending with the correct mailing list address.) Hi, Currently test/asan/TestCases/alloca_vla_interact.cc is XFAILed for powerpc64. I've had a look at why it doesn't work. I think the only problem is in the call to __asan_allocas_unpoison that is inserted at the end of the "for" loop (just before a stackrestore instruction). The call function is created something like this

On Oct 20, 2009, at 5:49 AM, Jay Foad wrote: >> To test clang: >> 1) Compile llvm and clang from source. > > LLVM fails to build for me on Cygwin. I get: > Does TOT build? If not, please file a bug. Unfortunately Cygwin is not in our release criteria. I'd like to have a buildbot running (if there is not one already) and then get someone to qualify it for the

On 13 February 2012 09:22, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > Would it be possible to use CityHash instead for strings? > > http://code.google.com/p/cityhash/ Incidentally there was talk of using CityHash for LLVM's StringMap last year, but I don't think it ever came to anything: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2011-April/014656.html Jay.

The following bugs look like they only relate to llvm-gcc. Can they be closed, as llvm-gcc is no longer supported? http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3636 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5011 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6764 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=8451 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9310 http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9311

How about tweaking the compiler-rt cmakefiles so that if lsan is not supported, the target check-lsan still exists but does nothing? I've attached a patch that does this. (I don't know much about cmake so there might be a better way of doing it.) Alternatively, can I change the zorg build script so that "run sanitizer tests in gcc build" doesn't try to run check-lsan etc

In LowerGET_DYNAMIC_AREA_OFFSET() you're calling MFI->getMaxCallFrameSize(), but it looks like that doesn't return useful information until after the PrologEpilogInserter's PEI::calculateCallsInformation() has run. So maybe the lowering has to be done as part of frame index elimination? (I'm not too familiar with this code.) Jay. On 23 November 2015 at 13:07, Jay Foad

Hi, This document tells me how to do a "read-only GIT clone of LLVM": http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#git_mirror Can someone please document how to get read-write access using git or git-svn, if it's possible? Or do I still have to use plain old svn to commit? (I have tried searching the mailing list to find out how to do this, but it seems like a lot of the information

On 11 November 2010 12:49, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > Delving a bit deeper, the difference seems to be that symbol "i" in > the assembler source: > >        .type   i, at object               # @i >        .section        .tdata,"awT", at progbits >        .globl  i >        .align  4 > i: >        .long   7                      

On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: > This is very similar to the problem of representing lexical scopes in > debug info. The llvm.dbg.region.* intrinsics were the wrong way of > doing it, because of the problems I mentioned above. Now we use > metadata attached  to each instruction to say what scope it is in, > which is much better, because

On 13 May 2014 21:27, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2014 14:33, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: >> I've always found the name ComputeMaskedBits a bit unintuitive, and >> since r154011 it's even worse because there is no masking going on >> whatsoever: >> >>