similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] LLVM C-API Change

Hi Bill, On 18/10/12 10:35, Bill Wendling wrote: > I recently reimplemented the Attributes class. It now hides the data representation inside of an opaque class. In the near future, we will be extending this class to encompass many other attributes. > > The changes pose one problem, however. The C-API still uses the old data representation for passing along the Attributes class. In

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it.  Here's the revised version of the patch Hi Kenneth! I wouldn't say that I'm the best reviewer, but I've been doing some work with the c bindings recently so

On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it > required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings.  I > hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. > LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it. Here's the revised version of the patch

My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the trunk. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cbindings.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7269 bytes Desc: not available URL:

The LLVMAddFunctionAttr and LLVMRemoveFunctionAttr are busted: they actually set the return value's attributes, not the function's attributes. There seems to be no C API for actually setting the function attributes. LLVMGetFunctionAttr, however, does correctly return the function attributes, not the return value's attributes. There is no C API for getting the return value

On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:33, james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. >> The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. > > Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but

On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 2:39 AM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> LLVMGetAttribute had a bug in it.  Here's the revised version of the patch > > Hi

On Oct 6, 2009, at 5:47 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Kenneth Uildriks > <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> My front-end is sync'd with the trunk now, and working well, but it >> required some additional functions exposed in the C bindings. I >> hereby submit them for review and approval for inclusion in the >> trunk.

Hi, I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. The latest build has changed the method addAttr so that it requires an AttributeSet argument (Argument::addAttr(AttributeSet AS). I'm not sure how to adjust to this change. The

On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > > IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. > The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but when I set an attribute on the parameter with index zero, it gets applied to

Hi Gordon, Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to concentrated on how llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes you have suggested and it's now a lot nicer and cleaner! Please do say, if there is anything else. Anders Johnsen On Saturday 26 April 2008 22:02:45 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Thanks for the patch.

On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > Hi Gordon, > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > concentrated on how > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > you have > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and cleaner! > > Please do say, if there is anything else. Nice. Just a few small

Hi Anders, Thanks for the patch. I'd like you to incorporate some feedback before I apply it, though. > Index: include/llvm/Argument.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Argument.h (revision 50213) > +++ include/llvm/Argument.h (working copy) > @@ -60,7 +60,16 @@ > + > + /// setByValAttr - Set true to give the

Hello, [Using LLVM r155315, according to `svn log | head`] I am experimenting with programatically building and jitting functions in a module, and I seem to be coming across a crash in some generated code. Using the llvm-c interface I build up the module which dumps like this: ; ModuleID = 'MyModule' target datalayout = "i686-apple-darwin11" target triple =

Hi David, I'm not certain, but to me the "LLVMSetTarget(module, "i686-apple-darwin11");" line looks suspicious. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of how target triples get handled, but it looks to me like that's requesting 32-bit code. I think that if you omit that line completely then the target will be inferred from the execution environment. My best

Is missing a *. Peter -- Peter O'Gorman http://pogma.com Index: include/llvm-c/Core.h =================================================================== --- include/llvm-c/Core.h (revision 75249) +++ include/llvm-c/Core.h (working copy) @@ -853,7 +853,7 @@ template<typename T> inline T **unwrap(LLVMValueRef *Vals, unsigned Length) { #if DEBUG - for

On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > Hi Gordon, > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > > concentrated on how > > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > > you have > > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and

On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Christian Schafmeister <chris.schaf at verizon.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. > > Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. > > The latest build has changed the method addAttr so

I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring out what to do for the case where the label is declared after the goto, like this: goto label; ... label: ... When I generate the code for the goto, I'd like to create a basic block that's not inserted anywhere in particular and then put

Hi.. Updated so you now set alignment through LLVMInstrSetAlignment. Anders Johnsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParamAttr.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 7420 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080424/cb72b4bb/attachment.patch>