similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Remove sretpromotion from Passes.html

Hi Alexandru, > The compilation error is : `error: ‘LD100’ was not declared in this scope.` > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu < > alexandruionutdiaconescu at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> Can you please tell me if it is possible in LLVM to cast a `Value*` to an >> `Instruction*/LoadInst*` if for example

In the latest snapshot from SVN on X86, llc refuses to compile functions returning structs larger than two i32 members. According to the docs, such limitations can be expected to exist on other platforms. This leads to a number of questions and observations: 1. Is there a good way to retrieve the current target limitations on struct return sizes? 2. The sretpromotion pass does not take struct

On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > In the latest snapshot from SVN on X86, llc refuses to compile > functions returning structs larger than two i32 members. > > According to the docs, such limitations can be expected to exist on > other platforms. > > This leads to a number of questions and observations: > > 1. Is there a good way to retrieve the

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 11:55 AM, Dan Gohman <gohman at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 8:32 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > >> In the latest snapshot from SVN on X86, llc refuses to compile >> functions returning structs larger than two i32 members. >> >> According to the docs, such limitations can be expected to exist on >> other platforms.

On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class >> aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the >> concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as >> a container for multiple values. > I'm not saying we don't have some

Hi Dan, > Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class > aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the > concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as > a container for multiple values. I'm not saying we don't have some way of modeling multiple return values, I'm sayin the explicit concept

Hi, The 20th of Novembre 2009, a LLVM BarCamp will be hold at La Cantine. Contributions, contributors, comments or any kind of help are welcome. Thanks and see you in Paris, Eric Mahe http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=140537112502 http://barcamp.org/LLVM-BarCamp-Paris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Rich, > I was thinking about my problem and thought that there might be a good > interim solution. I would like not to clutter my front end with stuff > that will go away. How about a pass that runs before code generation > that changes functions returning structs to void functions with the > return pointer first parameter? On this topic, you should look at the

Hi Dan, > The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee > gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism > with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far. I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying it could be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about

Hi Chris, On Sat, Jun 07, 2008 at 02:59:03PM -0700, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jun 2, 2008, at 1:03 PM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > >> Can you give some background about what kinds of things you're > >> thinking > >> about for this? > > For example, when I have a function returning {i32, i32} and I want > > to add > > another i32 to that. If

Good evening, guys! At first, I apologize my report is a little gross, I have so little time to do checking process minutely. * RC1 RC1 can be built on VS8, 9, 10 with Debug|Release. At one point, r127264(in release_29/trunk) is needed to build with Debug on VS10. RC1 can pass clang-test with any configurations. RC1 fails llvm's check on many tests. * RC1 and patches ToT would be ready

Hi, > Will sretpromotion still be needed? If the frontends would generate functions > returning a struct directly instead of using an sret argument, sret could > perhaps be removed alltogether? Though I guess there is an ABI difference > between using sret and returning a structure directly? right, there's an ABI difference. Also you can't return variable sized structs using

Hi, as you come to speak of it, i have implemented an OpenCL-Backend for LLVM as part of my bachelor thesis (and for GLSlang as well, see http://www.cdl.uni-saarland.de/publications/theses/moll_bsc.pdf ). However, the code is currently unreleased. But that could be arranged, if you are interested in using it. Regards, Simon Am Freitag, den 26.08.2011, 20:11 -0500 schrieb llvmdev-request at

On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:14 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi, > >> Will sretpromotion still be needed? If the frontends would generate >> functions >> returning a struct directly instead of using an sret argument, sret >> could >> perhaps be removed alltogether? Though I guess there is an ABI >> difference >> between using sret and returning a

Hello list members! I joined this list on May 1st and I can see I have a lot to learn. Thanks to everyone - especially those *@samba.org folks. You are so appreciated. Background in my plea for help: I'm the IT guy for a family owned community bank in Southern Colorado. I am very tired of the limitations and security problems of Micro$oft and have committed to learning and using Linux

Hi, I just configured samba (2.2.6) on a Linux box (2.4.18) to act as a PDC. I can bring W2K PCs into the domain, and I can read the data on exported shares. However, when I try to write data, the following occurs: 1. trying to create directories (AKA folders :-) from the W2K GUI using "New Folder": Error Message Box "Unable to create the folder 'New Folder'. Cannot create a

They are good. I am checking with Release now. 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m I will investigate it later. ...Takumi vs8 20>Failing Tests (3): 20> Clang :: CodeGenObjC/image-info.m 20> LLVM :: Transforms/SRETPromotion/basictest.ll 20> LLVM-Unit :: support/debug/SupportTests.exe/CastingTest.cast 20> Expected Passes : 8106 20> Expected Failures : 73

Dear R users, I have spent most of this day figuring out how to read STATA data into R (which eventually worked) and to run a simple OLS regression. It seems that the manuals are written in the most general and abstract way which does not really make it easy to understand what's going on. I'd be glad if somebody could save my day by: telling me how to define a matrix from the

Hi, I had an email with 58 recipients in the "To" and 13 in the "CC" Delivering it from exim to dovecot lmtp panics (see below) Panic: file smtp-address.c: line 533 (smtp_address_write): assertion failed: (smtp_char_is_qpair(*p)) # 2.3.1 (c5a5c0c82): /etc/dovecot/dovecot.conf # Pigeonhole version 0.5.devel (61b47828) # OS: Linux 2.6.32-696.23.1.el6.x86_64 x86_64 CentOS

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 20, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > I'm sure the implementation will take the same approach, but it won't > necessarily be ABI compatible. I don't know enough to say at this > point... it may end up being ABI compatible or not depending on > implementation details. Hi Chris, I was thinking about my problem and thought