similar to: [LLVMdev] Fwd: Multiply i8 operands promotes to i32

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Steve King > Sent: 23 July 2015 01:45 > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: [LLVMdev] signext on function parameters and return. > > Hello, > For a simple function taking a short and returning a short, clang > generates IR with this function

On Thu, Jul 23, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > > The target hook is classifyArgumentType() and classifyReturnType() in tools/clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp and returning ABIArgInfo::getExtend() causes the signext/zeroexts to be emitted appropriately for the type. Thanks for the great help. Should these classify calls be moved down into the

Hello, For a simple function taking a short and returning a short, clang generates IR with this function signature: define signext i16 @foo(i16 signext %x) Some questions please: 1) For the input parameter and return value, does the target control whether clang uses signext vs something else? If so, how does this target query work? 2) Does the presence of the signext mean it's imperative

Hello, I'm trying to change the default behavior for how structures are passed to functions to use pass-by-value. Currently LLVM's default behavior is to pass structures by reference. I'm not disputing the benefits of this but I really want to change the default behavior for experimentation purposes. To this end I've changed the code in DefaultABIInfo::classifyArgumentType() to

Hi, On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Martinez, Javier E < javier.e.martinez at intel.com> wrote: > Hello,**** > > ** ** > > I’m trying to change the default behavior for how structures are passed to > functions to use pass-by-value. Currently LLVM’s default behavior is to > pass structures by reference. I’m not disputing the benefits of this but I > really want to

Hi David, I think it might not be exactly PR13303 which might be causing the corruption of struct when accessed through GDB. This seems to be an ABI problem in clang. The problem seems to be that when we have pass by value of struct (having indirect arguments) stack is not aligned properly. I tried realigning the stack for indirect arguments in(TargetInfo.cpp) - ABIArgInfo

On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Karthik Bhat <karthikthecool at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi David, > > I think it might not be exactly PR13303 which might be causing the > corruption of struct when accessed through GDB. > This seems to be an ABI problem in clang. > The problem seems to be that when we have pass by value of struct > (having indirect arguments) stack is not

Hi, I'd like to propose the following patches for inclusion in Clang 3.5.1. Proposed clang patches: * r213769 - Fix test/Driver/cl-x86-flags.c by providing explicit -target * r214025 - [Driver][Mips] Check output of -dynamic-linker arguments by the Clang driver * r214662 - [Mips] Add the `mips64-linux-gnu` target to the test case to check `in128` type handling. *

Carl, See clang/lib/CodeGen/TargetInfo.cpp. // FIXME: mingw64-gcc emits 128-bit struct as i128 if (Size <= 128 && (Size & (Size - 1)) == 0) return ABIArgInfo::getDirect(llvm::IntegerType::get(getVMContext(), Size)); It was my workaround, sorry. Please check to tweak the clause (128 to 64) and lemme

This seems to be another case of PR13303 - since GDB can't figure out where to break for this function based on the debug info (you'll notice when you "break recurse" that it's not breaking on a line or source file, just an address) it's breaking at the very start, before the prologue I'm about to commit a fix to this. On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 AM, Karthik Bhat

In particular, I would for example like to prevent that two fields of type i32 are packed into an i64 parameter. And so on... Thanks! -- Zvonimir

> -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tom at stellard.net] > Sent: 24 November 2014 17:15 > To: Daniel Sanders > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List (llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu) > Subject: Re: Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1 > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:33:28PM +0000, Daniel Sanders wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'd like to propose the

The MS x64 ABI calling convention (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235286(VS.80).aspx) says: Any argument that doesn’t fit in 8 bytes, or is not 1, 2, 4, or 8 bytes, must be passed by reference. Clang isn't doing that for us when passing our triple, x86_64-pc-win32-macho. Here's a simple example program: struct Guid { unsigned int Data1; unsigned

Hi All, I was debugging a clang binary when i found this problem. The following code is complied with clang. typedef struct s { short s; } SVAL; void recurse (SVAL a, int depth) { a.s = --depth; if (depth == 0) return; else recurse(a,depth); } int main () { SVAL s; s.s = 5; recurse (s, 5); return 0; } When i try to access value of a.s in function recurse through gdb(i.e

On 2/16/2016 8:44 AM, Konstantin Vladimirov via llvm-dev wrote: > > CI->getArgOperand(0) returns operand with type (double*) rather then > double, because in our ABI doubles are passed via memory. The LLVM intrinsics in the LLVM IR must conform to whatever the IR's requirements are. That means that even in the case of your backend, the arguments to the intrinsic must be doubles,

Hi, Working on private backend, based on llvm-3.7 Inside lib/Transforms/InstCombine/InstCombineCompares.cpp there is attempt to optimize fabs: if (F->getIntrinsicID() == Intrinsic::fabs || ... switch (I.getPredicate()) { ... case FCmpInst::FCMP_OGT: return new FCmpInst(FCmpInst::FCMP_ONE, CI->getArgOperand(0), RHSC); But CI->getArgOperand(0)

Objects compiled for the MS-ABI don't conform to it! Data types beyond 64 bit MUST BE returned by the callee via the hidden first argument allocated by the caller, NOT in XMM0! Demo/proof: from this source --- llvm-bug.c --- #ifndef __clang__ typedef struct { unsigned __int64 low; unsigned __int64 high; } __uint128_t; #else __attribute__((ms_abi)) #endif __uint128_t

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote on 22.10.2012 20:53:54: > So, I'm not really sure if this is the right approach. I'd like some > folks from the LLVM side of things to chime in. > > In general, I'm not certain we want to continue growing our dependence > on the signext and zeroext attributes on return types, or whether we > want to do the

I've hit this weird compiler error when building llvm/clang $ clang --version clang version 2.9 (trunk 125254) Target: x86_64-apple-darwin10 Thread model: posix Source rev is 125326 $ make llvm[1]: Compiling APFloat.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling APInt.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling APSInt.cpp for Release build llvm[1]: Compiling Allocator.cpp for Release build llvm[1]:

Hi Chandler, That's embarrassing how weird this part of clang is. I have a provisional patch which fixes the problem but underlines clang's problems. I will submit it tonight for comments. суббота, 18 октября 2014 г. пользователь Chandler Carruth написал: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < > anton at korobeynikov.info >