similar to: [LLVMdev] Accessing arguments in a caller

Nella citazione giovedì 18 agosto 2011 09:11:36, Carlo Alberto Ferraris ha scritto: > I need some advice on "forwarding" arguments to a callee. Suppose I have > a function F that is called at the beginning of all other functions in > the module. From F I need to access (read) the arguments passed to its > immediate caller. Right now I do something like boxing all

Nella citazione martedì 2 agosto 2011 20:02:08, Michael Ilseman ha scritto: > I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be > determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true > and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). Correct. Or, more precisely, I'd like to investigate macro compression, i.e.

I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). Suppose I have the following: SwitchInst *s = SwitchInst::Create(...); BasicBlock *bb = ...; PtrToIntInst k = new PtrToIntInst(BlockAddress::get(bb), <TYPE>, "", s);

Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: > I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at > least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try > to fix it or file a bug with your test case. In the source it says "If the predecessor is an indirect goto, we can't split the edge.

On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: > Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: >> >> I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try to fix it or file a bug with your test case. > In the source it says "If the predecessor is an indirect goto, we

Nella citazione giovedì 7 luglio 2011 19:41:16, John McCall ha scritto: > On Jul 7, 2011, at 4:33 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: >> Il 07/07/2011 11:14, Cameron Zwarich ha scritto: >>> I haven't read the code in detail, but it looks like JumpThreading at >>> least attempts to thread across indirect branches. You can either try >>> to fix it or file a

Hi Carlo, rather than declaring individual stack variables int x; int y; int z; and so on, which requires you to pass each one, or a pointer to each one, to your function, declare one stack variable of struct type that holds them all: struct StackObjects { int x; int y; int z; ... }; ... struct StackObjects stack; then pass the address of stack to your

Nella citazione martedì 2 agosto 2011 22:01:13, Carlo Alberto Ferraris ha scritto: > My question is: > what is the best way to > express such relationships in LLVM IR ("best" in the sense of allowing > other optimizations to run effectively)? Bear in mind that in this > example N=2, but it may be way bigger than that. Just to clarify: I already figured out two ways to

Suppose I have a bb with N predecessors and N successors. What is, in your opinion, the best way to express that the bb has (dynamically) only one successor (i.e. if coming from the i-th predecessor we will always jump to the i-th successor)? b.r., -- Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com <mailto:cafxx at strayorange.com>> website/blog

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:36 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris <cafxx at strayorange.com> wrote: > I'm trying to figure out how to feed a blockaddress to a switch condition > AND destination (basically emulating an indirectbr via a switch; I know it's > not a good approach, I'm just experimenting). > Suppose I have the following: > > SwitchInst *s =

I'm assuming that you're talking about a situation where this can't be determined statically in the existing LLVM IR, but you know it's true and want to put it in (e.g. you're the one generating LLVM IR). If that's not the case, then see if JumpThreading will do it for you. I'm not familiar with a way to express exactly what you want to say, but are you opposed to just

Hi Carlo, > Nella citazione lunedì 22 agosto 2011 11:53:29, Duncan Sands ha scritto: >> Hi Carlo, rather than declaring individual stack variables >> int x; >> int y; >> int z; >> and so on, which requires you to pass each one, or a pointer to each one, >> to your function, declare one stack variable of struct type that holds >> them all: >>

Hi Erkki, > I want to experiment with avoiding mutable state as far as I can. At the moment > there are no mutable variables -- only immutable value types (numerics, bool, > vectors, tuples) and I've been doing everything in LLVM registers. The compiler > doesn't generate a single alloca, load or store at the moment. > > I wonder if it was maybe a bad idea to do it this

Quick question: how do I get a list of StructType* defined/used in a Module? I can't seem to find an appropriate iterator in the Module class... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110831/17715c85/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Nella citazione lunedì 22 agosto 2011 11:53:29, Duncan Sands ha scritto: > Hi Carlo, rather than declaring individual stack variables > int x; > int y; > int z; > and so on, which requires you to pass each one, or a pointer to each one, > to your function, declare one stack variable of struct type that holds > them all: > struct StackObjects { > int

On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: > Quick question: how do I get a list of StructType* defined/used in a Module? I can't seem to find an appropriate iterator in the Module class... Module::findUsedStructTypes. Note that this requires scanning the entire module, it is not an efficient operation. -Chris

What I can think of: 1. Anonymous struct, to avoid a copy. 2. Use stdarg.h...dangerous but accomplishes what you're looking for. 3. Split up F: giant switch statements often indicate that your function is doing several different things. (IMHO...) 4. Don't worry about it, it's probably not a bottleneck. (Or rather, profile first...) But no, there's no standard way to do this. Even

Nella citazione mercoledì 31 agosto 2011 20:35:46, Chris Lattner ha scritto: > On Aug 31, 2011, at 10:23 AM, Carlo Alberto Ferraris wrote: >> Quick question: how do I get a list of StructType* defined/used in a Module? I can't seem to find an appropriate iterator in the Module class... > Module::findUsedStructTypes. Note that this requires scanning the entire module, it is not an

Variadic templates themselves don't avoid the copy, but combined with perfect forwarding you should be doing well (see, for example, make_shared) From: Jordy Rose Sent: 8/21/2011 10:34 AM To: Carlo Alberto Ferraris Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Accessing arguments in a caller What I can think of: 1. Anonymous struct, to avoid a copy. 2. Use stdarg.h...dangerous but

Hi, I'm a newbie when it comes to compilers (and even close-to-machine coding), but recently started working on my own language and am using LLVM as the mid/backend. Currently I'm generating .ll files from a front-end written in Scala. The language is not really serious, just a way to learn more about compilers (and LLVM) and maybe serve as a base for further experiments. It's