similar to: [LLVMdev] Is it an opt bug ?

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 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*

Hi Rotem, Thanks for the quick answer, how do I know which type is legal/illegal with respect to calling convention ? Best Regards Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: Rotem, Nadav [mailto:nadav.rotem at intel.com] > Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 11:21 AM > To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: RE: Vector argument passing abi for ARM ? > > The

Hi, I think this is a very simple question, and it must just be missing something. I am looking for find out how to assign a constant integer value to the variable in llvm ir. The following returns 12, and %var2 = 12. ; ModuleID = 't.c' target datalayout =

Hi Duncan, I also thought it was a bug, especially since it worked with LLVM 3.0, but since it is not defined by ABI, I was not sure if I need to submit it as a BUG. I wanted to be sure that it is an actual BUG before submitting it and got the not-a-bug answer. Here is a small example to reproduce the problem I'm experiencing: ; ModuleID = 'bugparam.ll' target datalayout =

Hi all, I was wondering if there is a defined ABI for passing vector as parameter for ARM target. For instance is this valid to write .ll statement like: ; ModuleID = 'bugconv.ll' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-n32" target triple = "thumbv7-none-linux-androideabi" define

Hi all, I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: ; ModuleID = 'check.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" @.str581 = internal constant [52 x i8] c"---- test number %d

In the creation of dynamic languages we often have to box values together. For instance, take the following expression: IntObj c = sqrt((a*a)+(b*b)); Here, most likely, a bytecode interpreter would execute this as "mul_ints", "add_ints", "sqrt", etc. Inside these primitive functions we would have to unwrap our IntObj types, add the values, allocate a new object and

Hi Sebastien, > Thanks for the quick answer, how do I know which type is legal/illegal with respect to calling convention ? the code generators are supposed to produce working code no matter what the parameter type is. The fact that the ARM ABI doesn't specify how <2 x i8> is passed just means that the code generators can pass it using whatever technique it feels like (since it

Hi Sebastien, > I also thought it was a bug, especially since it worked with LLVM 3.0, but since it is not defined by ABI, I was not sure if I need to submit it as a BUG. yes it is a bug. > I wanted to be sure that it is an actual BUG before submitting it and got the not-a-bug answer. I didn't read Nadav's reply as saying there was no bug, in fact he explicitly said in his email

Hi all, on following code: ; ModuleID = 'shufxbug.ll' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" define void @sample_test(<4 x float>* nocapture %source, <8 x float>* nocapture %dest) nounwind noinline { L.entry:

On Mar 15, 2013, at 3:08 PM, James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I think this is a very simple question, and it must just be missing something. > > I am looking for find out how to assign a constant integer value to > the variable in llvm ir. > > The following returns 12, and %var2 = 12. > ; ModuleID = 't.c' > target

Hi all, Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? Thanks Seb 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting > x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout = >

On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? > Thanks > Seb > > 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout =

The argument passing calling convention is undefined for illegal types, such as <2 x i8>. The invalid misaligned loads on ARM sounds like a bug in the ARM backend. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Sebastien DELDON-GNB Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2012 12:14 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] Vector

I tried bu clang seems to support only target on which it has been compiled. If I use: with clang -S -emit-llvm t.c -o t.ll I've got following file for t.ll ; ModuleID = 't.c' target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple =

Hi All, I need your guidance about a custom attribute. I have defined one for variables. It is accepted in the source code (without any warnings from clang), for example in following snippet. #define NEWATTR __attribute__((moviAttr(1))) int main() { NEWATTR volatile unsigned int a = 5; volatile unsigned int *p; p = &a; return (a+*p); } and actually when I Dump the declaration, after

Hi Asit, thanks for the reply. But I guess I was not clear in my question. Actually, i dont want to use __ATTRIBUTE__((ANNOTATE("MOVIATTR"))), since in documentation it is stated that "This intrinsic allows annotation of local variables with arbitrary strings. This can be useful for special purpose optimizations that want to look for these annotations. These have no other

2011/12/9 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:03:37AM +0100, Seb wrote: > > I think my explanation is not clear, my front-end did NOTt generate > > 'llvm.memcpy' it generate LL code that after use of LLVM 'opt' get > > transformed by 'loop-idom' pass into an 'llvm.memcpy' for an overlapping >

Hello, We've just got a bug report from Mozilla folks about AddressSanitizer false positive with -O2. Turns out there is a conflict between load widening and AddressSanitizer. Simple reproducer: % cat load_widening.c && echo ========= && clang -O2 -c load_widening.c -flto && llvm-dis load_widening.o && cat load_widening.o.ll void init(char *); int foo() {