similar to: [LLVMdev] mismatched function signatures

> It seems fine if the mismatched types are the types that can work with > trunc or ext. But other types, for example, structs, may not work. In > general, if a parameter is of type t1, and its argument is of type t2, > what value of the argument can we expect? Will it be a random value of > type t2? The call to function with mismatched signature yields undefined behavior. So,

On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 4:29 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> It seems fine if the mismatched types are the types that can work with >> trunc or ext. But other types, for example, structs, may not work. In >> general, if a parameter is of type t1, and its argument is of type t2, >> what value of the argument can we expect? Will it be a

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> On

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >>> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com>

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Jianzhou, > >> I misunderstood C99 ISO, such behaviors are defined not when types >> have the same sizes, but when they are same (compatible)  types with >> signed or qualified extension (this is much stronger than being of >> same sizes), or reading char by char: >> >> 7

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> On

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:27 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:49 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte >>> <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com>

Hi Jianzhou, > I misunderstood C99 ISO, such behaviors are defined not when types > have the same sizes, but when they are same (compatible) types with > signed or qualified extension (this is much stronger than being of > same sizes), or reading char by char: > > 7 An object shall have its stored value accessed only by an lvalue > expression that has one of > the

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Santosh Nagarakatte > <santosh.nagarakatte at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I have been trying to understand the use of undef in both sequential >> and concurrent programs. >> >> >From the LLVM Language Reference Manual, I

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> I

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 11:09 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a confusion about types used in load/store, > (http://llvm.org/docs/GetElementPtr.html#types) says that [...] > Furthermore, loads and stores don't have to use the same types as the > type of the underlying object. Types in this context serve only to > specify memory

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >>> rules. Do the rules tell

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I have a question about when we should apply these pointer aliasing >> rules. Do the rules tell us when a load/store is safe? >> "Any memory access must be done through a pointer value

Hi Seb, I think it is an opt bug. If you run opt at -O1 then you get: define void @t2(double* nocapture %x) nounwind { L.entry: %a = alloca [2 x i64], align 8 %0 = getelementptr inbounds [2 x i64]* %a, i32 0, i32 0 store i64 3, i64* %0, align 8 %1 = getelementptr [2 x i64]* %a, i32 0, i32 1 store i64 5, i64* %1, align 8 %2 = bitcast [2 x i64]* %a to double* %3 = load double*

Hi, I need some help on integrating a function that is a vector. I have a function - vector which each element is different. And, naturally, function integrate() does not work I checked the article of U. Ligges and J. Fox (2008) about code optimization "How Can I Avoid This Loop or Make It Faster?" on http://promberger.info/files/rnews-vectorvsloops2008.pdf. Their advice did not help

Hi all, I'm looking at following code snippet: void t2(double *x) { long long a[2]; a[0] = 3; a[1] = 5; *x = * ((double *) a); *(x+1) = * ((double *) &a[a[0]-2]); } I use generate LLVM code using my own front-end that looks like: ; ModuleID = 'jb.c' target datalayout =

Hi Duncan, Indeed, I made same experiment as you and concluded that it might be a BUG. Shall I submit it to llvm bug tracking support ? Do you think there could be a work-around ? Thanks for your quick answer. Best Regards Seb 2012/2/28 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > Hi Seb, I think it is an opt bug. If you run opt at -O1 then you get: > > define void @t2(double*