similar to: [LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang?

Ahmed Charles wrote: > Technically, it could've sent the mail before you even thought about > writing it. Undefined is undefined, there are no requirements. From: > Dustin Laurence > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 6:50 AM > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is this a bug in clang? > On 04/19/2011 10:50 PM, John Regehr wrote: > >> The compiler

> So... Are 40 and 41 the only legal behaviors or are there more? Since the program invokes undefined behavior, anything goes. The compiler is perfectly within its rights to send a rude email to your department chair if you compile that code. John

On Jan 8, 2010, at 3:08 PM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/08/2010 02:10 PM, John McCall wrote: > >> 'llc' is an IR-to-assembly compiler; at -O3 it does some pretty neat >> machine-code and object-file optimizations, but it does not apply >> high-level optimizations like CSE or inlining. 'opt' is the tool >> which does IR-to-IR optimization. >

Hello Dustin, Always inline is the closest to a preprocessor macro you can get in LLVM Assembly since it doesn't have a preprocessor at all. LLVM does aggressive inlining for functions used only once so those instances don't require specification as alwaysinline. --Sam ----- Original Message ---- > From: Dustin Laurence <dllaurence at dslextreme.com> > Cc: llvmdev at

Thanks everyone, a set of wrapper routines it will be then. Dustin, are the routines you wrote open source or do you know if there is already a project that provides such a portable interface to libc for LLVM? If not, I'll write my own routines, but if there is a way to adopt a common standard or avoid reinventing the wheel I'm all for it. Mike

Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/15/2010 11:37 AM, Talin wrote: > >> Yes, that's closer to the frontend semantics: the variants of a >> union type don't have any natural ordering, so list semantics could >> cause problems. > > I agree. I probably shouldn't even comment, as I know so little about > LLVM. But I've hand-written a couple

Hi Dustin- You'll probably need to use insertvalue to construct your return value. Alastair On 7 Jan 2010, at 21:56, Dustin Laurence wrote: > define %Token @foo() > { > ... > > ret %Token {%c_int %token, %i8* %value} > }

On Jan 2, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about the indirectbr instruction. I attempted to > use > it according to the example in the Assembly Language Reference manual, > but got an "expected instruction opcode" error. Poking about on the > web > I found this document: > >

On Jan 9, 2010, at 12:57 PM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > I have yet another question that I believe also stems from deep > ignorance of the linkage types. How do you declare a global variable > without defining it? The equivalent of "extern int G;" is: @G = external global i32 -Chris

On Tuesday 06 April 2010 14:52:47 Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 04/06/2010 11:45 AM, Tanya Lattner wrote: > > While lack of linux testing of the testsuite is a problem, this is > > not why the release is slipping. We need more people to fix bugs. It > > can't be the same people fixing the bugs for every release. > > > > We need more people in the community to

Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/08/2010 02:10 PM, John McCall wrote: > > >> 'llc' is an IR-to-assembly compiler; at -O3 it does some pretty neat >> machine-code and object-file optimizations, but it does not apply >> high-level optimizations like CSE or inlining. 'opt' is the tool >> which does IR-to-IR optimization. >> > > A

On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Dustin Laurence <dllaurence at dslextreme.com> wrote: > On 01/02/2010 11:24 AM, Bob Wilson wrote: > >> Yes, that is correct.  It is supported in the trunk sources, but it has >> not yet been released. > > Hmm.  Would the same also be true of the "inbounds" keyword for GEP?  It > doesn't seem to be recognized

On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:52 PM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > gemini:~/Projects/Nil/nil(0)$ make testInline.s testInline > llvm-as testInline.ll > llc -O3 -f testInline.bc 'llc' is an IR-to-assembly compiler; at -O3 it does some pretty neat machine-code and object-file optimizations, but it does not apply high-level optimizations like CSE or inlining. 'opt' is the tool which

On Sat, Jan 9, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Dustin Laurence <dllaurence at dslextreme.com> wrote: > I have yet another question that I believe also stems from deep > ignorance of the linkage types.  How do you declare a global variable > without defining it?  The IR ref. clearly indicates that you can do > this, but it looks like one of the many "too obvious to mention" things

On Jan 9, 2010, at 5:53 PM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/09/2010 01:12 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> The equivalent of "extern int G;" is: >> >> @G = external global i32 > > OK, then I want to whine a little bit about how that is more obscurely > hinted at than discussed. Whine, whine.... :-) Patches welcome! -Chris

Awesome, thanks! Committed as r93170 with the following change: s/local variables/registers/. "Local variable" refers to allocas in LLVM, rather than %whatever SSA "variables". On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 1:28 AM, Dustin Laurence <dllaurence at dslextreme.com> wrote: > Here is a patch that cleans up a couple of bugs and makes what I think > are a couple of small

On Jan 11, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > > If these patches are useful I'll send more, but I should know one > thing. > I notice that the example code in the LangRef is not formatted > consistently; sometimes in a grey box, sometimes just inline. My > guess > is the preferred format changed at some point and older ones are just > not updated yet. I

On Thursday 07 January 2010 15:28, Dustin Laurence wrote: > I think I'm missing something basic about the semantics of returning an > aggregate type (in my case, a structure) from a function. Returning a > structure containing only compile-time constants is simple enough. But > I don't quite get how this works with a struct composed at run-time. If > I constructed it on

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. >> "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many >> important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". > > Wow. It's perhaps too much of a

If it helps, to see what is involved, outside of a pure IR context, see the example code, and doc at: http://wiki.llvm.org/HowTo:_Build_JIT_based_Exception_mechanism#Source_Code:_exceptionDemo.cpp Although this is a pure example that shows several test cases, including foreign exception interaction, it is not an IR example, but rather a LLVM IR API example. It would be interesting to see a pure