similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] OpenCL half support

Peter Zotov писал 09.01.2013 19:59: > Hello. > > I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at > [1]) which produces > a series of identical errors when verified: > > | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable > type! > | %i.NilClass* @nil > > When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies >

Hello. I've managed to create a bitcode file (attached; also available at [1]) which produces a series of identical errors when verified: | Global variable initializer type does not match global variable type! | %i.NilClass* @nil When ran through llvm-dis and recompiled, through, it verifies successfully. If I disassemble it one more time, the result is identical to the first

From: Anastasiia Lukianenko <anastasiia_lukianenko at epam.com> We are trying to use the clang-format approach as a base for Xen [1] style formatting. During the state of testing clang-format with different configurations, we found that some points regarding the Xen coding style are not configurable. Therefore, we decided to add them to be able to make a choice in different cases. Regards,

On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them > according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most > structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a > packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access > fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the

Hi Chris I have questions about new IR. > Named structs. > Unnamed structs (named structs with no names) > Anonymous structs (things like complex, which cannot be cyclic) > >Given this, the rules above would be that "only non-anonymous structs can have >cycles" for example. Arrays, pointers and other non-namable types can be >considered to be anonymous as well.

This is the first iteration of the GObject bindings. I have 'kicked the tyres' on these, meaning I have ensured that a bunch of basic manual tests work as expected. I'm in the process of adding more comprehensive tests. Here's an example simple javascript program which uses these bindings: === const Guestfs = imports.gi.Guestfs; print('Starting'); var g = new

Talin wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: >> >>> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >>> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >>> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >>> the union and then

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: > >> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >> the union and then bitcast it to access the fields contained

This reverts commit 3f6ca541c7b24d4c86688a509582cb41a7e0078c. The original commit was reverted prematurely. --- generator/generator_actions.ml | 10 +++++----- generator/generator_checks.ml | 5 +++++ generator/generator_types.ml | 3 +++ 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/generator/generator_actions.ml b/generator/generator_actions.ml index

Does an array of a value type and a structure containing only that type have the same alignment requirements?  That is, in C-syntax: float* array; struct point { float x; float y; } point p; array = (float*)&p; Does `array[0]` now refer to x, and `array[1]` to y? I'm creating these structures in LLVM with default packing (StructType::isPacked == false). I have a library that takes

Chris Lattner wrote: > URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=81845&view=rev > Log: > fix PR4963: folding insertvalue would sometimes turn a packed struct into > an unpacked one. About this bug -- it happened because ConstantStruct::get has a default parameter for whether the struct should be packed or not, which defaults to not packed. This is strikingly error prone. We

I am using LLVM C++ API to generate IR for some structure data. For example: struct mystruct {int a:1; int b:2; unsigned long c} = {{1, 2, 3}}; I read the document and tried the demo cgi, it seems the API requires user to handle padding and value combination for the initializer by themselves. Is there any way to create the struct more simply like this:

I'm building a StructType without a body using StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. If I create a StructType using StructType * StructType ::create(LLVMContext

Hi Rick, On 22/01/13 09:04, Rick Mann wrote: > I'm building a StructType without a body using > > StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); > > and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. this is the standard

> > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:24:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Strategy to compile for LLVM IR > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0706151218030.7416 at nondot.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown" > > On

Hi Óscar, Thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately, I still need more guidance as using the Demo page to generate C++ code didn't result in a global variable being used. Basically, I'm following your advice to use a LoadInst: Value *v = new LoadInst(result, "", theBasicBlock); Function *myfn = cast<Function>(v); I was not sure how I could get a BasicBlock for the

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 11:51:47AM +0000, Tim Northover wrote: > Hello, > > I noticed a bit of a gap in the current code for unions: a > ConstantUnion cannot be written out to .ll. I've been continuing plugging gaps as I find them, which might not be the best way to solve this problem, but it has produced something that seems to do roughly what I expect. I've split it into

On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Joshua Warner <joshuawarner32 at gmail.com>wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 12:48 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Joshua Warner <joshuawarner32 at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi Talin, >>> >>> Sorry to interject - >>> >>>

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Joshua Warner <joshuawarner32 at gmail.com>wrote: > > Hi Talin, > > Let me ask a question before we go too much further. Currently the argument >> to llvm.gcroot must be an alloca instruction. You cannot GEP an internal >> field within the alloca and pass it to the gcroot intrinsic. So the entire >> alloca is considered a root,

Hi Talin, Let me ask a question before we go too much further. Currently the argument > to llvm.gcroot must be an alloca instruction. You cannot GEP an internal > field within the alloca and pass it to the gcroot intrinsic. So the entire > alloca is considered a root, even if it has non-pointer fields. My question > is, in this new address-space proposal, are we talking about changing