similar to: [LLVMdev] Confusion with GetElementPtr and Defs/Uses

On Jun 2, 2011, at 9:46 AM, Griffin Wright wrote: > > Hello all: > > I apologize for what I imagine is a rather silly question, but I'm still > somewhat new to LLVM and am stuck. I am reworking some code that was > originally in the backend involving MachineInstructions and > MachineOperands, and I now need for it to function as an LLVM IR pass, > using just

Hello all: I apologize for what I imagine is a rather silly question, but I'm still somewhat new to LLVM and am stuck. I am reworking some code that was originally in the backend involving MachineInstructions and MachineOperands, and I now need for it to function as an LLVM IR pass, using just Instructions, etc, and nothing related to 'Machine'. However, I am not sure how to get the

It would be prudent the test for success and continue rather than failure and drop. For example: exten => s,5,GotoIf($["${SYSTEMSTATUS}" != "SUCCESS"]?105:6) That way only the result that you know is good, Will continue a call.. > -----Original Message----- > From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com > [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On

Hello, When rsync'ing over an ISDN 64kb/s channel, I get reported mostly 0 kB/s: 1287 100% 0.00kB/s 0:00:00 home/httpd/html/mirrors/developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/System/Documentation/Developer/YellowBox/TasksAndConcepts/JavaTutorial/3.JavaDebugging/toc.html 731 100% 0.00kB/s 0:00:00

There''s a good article at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4616700.stm that says, in a nutshell, that people form their impression of a Web site in 50 milliseconds. With an 80K download for prototype, that leads me to ask: "how can page sizes be trimmed and still use cool features"? I recognize that browsers may feel free to download these scripts asynchronously, but

>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. > > > That is a graph-wise definition, sure. > So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source > of the problem. > > For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use > block" (which would be true here), *and* > that "definition appears before use in

On 25 February 2015 at 10:58, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 6:26 AM, Rafael Espíndola > <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Maybe. >> > My view is the ideal is either no-unreachable code, or unreachable >> > blocks >> > only contain terminators. >> >> I am

Hi everyone, Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean input validation is essential. This is a generic discussion of state of affairs. I want to do some progress in fuzzing before we finish it (especially if we

Hi Kiko, 2006/2/25, Kiko Piris <menorqui@pirispons.net>: > Package: nut-usb > Version: 2.0.3-1 > Severity: important > > > When newhidups loses comunication with ups (G), it dies when trying to > reconnect with the error: > > *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x08068268 *** > > Following is a copy&paste of the last lines of

On 02/25/2015 10:41 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> all the zero paths from entry to %a pass by %b. >> >> That is a graph-wise definition, sure. >> So, this is an interesting definition, and maybe this is part of the source >> of the problem. >> >> For SSA, at least GCC requires that both "definition block dominates use >> block" (which

When looking into https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24866, I discovered that the root cause of the crash is that I was expecting every basic block to have a corresponding Node in the dominator tree. Apparently, the "while.end" basic block in the example does not have a Node in the Dominator Tree. Can anyone tell me if this is expected? If so, under what circumstances?

Hi, there's a regression going from 6.2 to 6.3, where it will panic upon booting the kernel within vm_fault. This problem has been discussed before, but I'm seeing it reliably on a RELENG_6 checkout from 5th of May. It affects multiple (but identical) systems, here's an verbose boot leading to the panic. Please note that 6.2 was running fine on these machines, they also boot