similar to: [LLVMdev] Do I need to calculate padding by myself to construct a StructType ?

I'm building a StructType without a body using StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. If I create a StructType using StructType * StructType ::create(LLVMContext

Hi Rick, On 22/01/13 09:04, Rick Mann wrote: > I'm building a StructType without a body using > > StructType *StructType::create(LLVMContext &Context, StringRef Name); > > and then later adding a body to with setBody(). It starts of isOpaque() == true, and isSized() == false, and after I add the body, isOpaque() == false, but isSized() is still false. this is the standard

Hi Óscar, Thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately, I still need more guidance as using the Demo page to generate C++ code didn't result in a global variable being used. Basically, I'm following your advice to use a LoadInst: Value *v = new LoadInst(result, "", theBasicBlock); Function *myfn = cast<Function>(v); I was not sure how I could get a BasicBlock for the

On Jul 12, 2011, at 5:04 AM, Vitaly Lugovskiy wrote: > Hi Chris, > > What's a new way of building recursive types (with C bindings), once > RefineType had been removed? And what's an exact reason for getting > rid of the opaque types - I could not find a relevant discussion in a > mailing list. Hi Vitaly, I didn't add this API, because I'm not very familiar

Hi Chris I have questions about new IR. > Named structs. > Unnamed structs (named structs with no names) > Anonymous structs (things like complex, which cannot be cyclic) > >Given this, the rules above would be that "only non-anonymous structs can have >cycles" for example. Arrays, pointers and other non-namable types can be >considered to be anonymous as well.

My apologies if this has already been discussed/explained (reference?). In browsing the new type system implementation, I was wondering if someone could give a simple example of why one would want to reset the name of a previous realized StructType instance (setBody(...) has been called). My curiosity is enhanced by the fact that reseting a name of a StructType instance may result in a symbol

Dear all, I am using LLVM C++ API to generate some code. In particular, I am dealing with AVX2 SIMD API which uses __m256i. My function input types a set of vectors and return type is also a vector. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// arguments.push_back(VectorType::get(IntegerType::getIntNTy(TheContext, 64), 4));//int64*4 = __m256i

Hi All, I'm new to LLVM and I'm having a coding problem. I'm creating a GlobalVariable that contains a StructType that contains a Function. The function returns i32 and takes two i32's. Here is my code: GlobalVariable* retrieved = module->getGlobalVariable("myGV"); ... Constant* result = ConstantExpr::getGetElementPtr(retrieved, indices); How do I get my Function

I'm implementing c style "sizeof()", and I did as http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/SizeOf-OffsetOf-VariableSizedStructs.txt illuarstrated, and it works find, here's an example of my implementation: auto *p = builder.CreateGEP(structTy, llvm::ConstantPointerNull::get(pointerTy), constint1); auto *size =

Hi Stefan, Thank you very much for answering my question! I followed your suggestion but the function still cannot return the correct result. I also set target-feature attributes for my function. I am using LLVM 6.0. It only prints out some random large numbers but the correct answer is supposed to be all 0. Can you please help me figure out what's going on here? Any help will be greatly

Hi, I want to add an integer field to all C++ classes in LLVM. Where do I look at in the LLVM source to make the necessary changes? As of now, what I understand is that I need to make changes in Type.cpp (llvm/lib/IR/Type.cpp) where I insert an integer field in the ArrayRef passed to StructType::setBody? Thanks! -Mohit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

On Dec 6, 2006, at 10:44 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them > according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most > structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a > packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access > fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: > >> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >> the union and then bitcast it to access the fields contained

Hi Joshua, Thanks for your great comment. I made up a ConstantVector in IR. Then I successfully use AVX intrinsics to retrieve the returned vector data. The remaining thing is that how to pass the vectors to LLVM function using intrinsics. Do you have any suggestions? Please forgive me if the question is too naive. I pasted below two IR I used. The first one works. The second one doesn't.

Talin wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Talin wrote: >> >>> I've been thinking about how to represent unions or "disjoint types" >>> in LLVM IR. At the moment, the only way I know to achieve this right >>> now is to create a struct that is as large as the largest type in >>> the union and then

With StructType you can create an empty structure and then call setBody later. How can one do the same thing with a PointerType? I'm translating a recursive structure which includes pointers to itself. I end up creating multiple copies of logically equivalent pointer types. -- edA-qa mort-ora-y -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sign: Please digitally

Currently, Structure layout is left to targets, which implement them according to the ABI of that platform. While this is fine for most structures, it makes packed structures very ugly. All fields in a packed type must be converted to byte arrays with casts to access fields, which bloats accesses and obsfucates the types. First class support for packed types would clean up the generated code

On Jul 13, 2011, at 4:26 AM, Anton Lokhmotov wrote: > Hi Chris, > > We have updated the half patch for TOT. Could you review please? Sorry for the delay, some thoughts: +++ b/include/llvm/Bitcode/LLVMBitCodes.h @@ -110,10 +110,12 @@ namespace bitc { TYPE_CODE_METADATA = 16, // METADATA TYPE_CODE_X86_MMX = 17, // X86 MMX + + TYPE_CODE_HALF = 18, // IEEE

On 25 June 2011 13:00, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> 3. Clang/dragonegg need to adapt to the new API (help appreciated!) > > what needs to be done exactly? Background info: http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemRewrite.txt As I understand it, PATypeHolder, OpaqueType and the Module's TypeSymbolTable are gone. Instead, StructTypes can optionally be

> > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 12:24:52 -0700 (PDT) > From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Strategy to compile for LLVM IR > To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0706151218030.7416 at nondot.org> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="x-unknown" > > On