similar to: [LLVMdev] Cannot interchange "literal" and "identified" structs

Justin, http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#structure-type "Identified types can be recursive, can be opaqued, and are never uniqued." Do you think it would be less descriptive? "Identified type, aka named llvm::StructType, is never uniqued against other identified types nor literal types, aka unnamed StructType(s)." ? See also;

On May 22, 2014, at 3:51 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Louis Gerbarg <lgg at apple.com> wrote: > The problem that the above transform is technically illegal because “When indexing into a (optionally packed) structure, only i32 integer constants are allowed (when using a vector of indices they must all be the same

Recently I posted a patch to migrate certain GEPs between basic blocks in cases where doing so would improve the ability of instcombine to merge into more complicated addressing mode (r209049 and r209065). After some build to failures it was rolled back. I now have a patch that no longer causes the regressions I was seeing, but it also no longer can optimize the case I was trying to optimize. As

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

Dear R-users, I am trying to use the grep function to test whether a particular string is of the form "n.../mydir/myfile.mytype.myext". Anything between n and mytype could vary, and anything after mytype could vary. I tried to proceed by steps to build my regular expression... but I do not really understand why the last call of the following code do not work. Any help would be

Dear R users, Suppose I have the following data.frame: myID myType myNum1 myNum2 myNum3 a Single 10 11 12 b Single 15 25 35 c Double 22 33 44 d Double 4 6 8 and I want to have new records: myID myType myNum1 myNum2 myNum3 e Single 12.5 18

Hi all, I''m struggling with the following: I have a defined type wrapped in a class: class myclass { define mytype(bla) { file { "blabla": .... } exec { "blablabla": ... } } } And I access the defined type in my other class by doing this: class otherclass { include myclass myclass::mytype { "alb": ... } # and here I want to

Hi, Sorry I fat fingered an earlier send in the previous email. I was trying to say: On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: >> +1 Exactly this. >> I don't think C programmer will not understand using. The "=" makes it much >> simpler to read, even if it is the first time you see it, which is not the >>

2017-01-10 0:06 GMT+01:00 David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:59 PM Sanjoy Das via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Sorry I fat fingered an earlier send in the previous email. I was >> trying to say: >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Sanjoy Das >> <sanjoy at

Hi everyone, I have been trying to extend Rcpp with my own wrap and as templates. Two issues: 1) I need to explicitly call wrap. Is that expected? So for example I wrote this specialization: template<> SEXP Rcpp::wrap(std::vector<TimedOptDouble> const& entries) { std::vector<double> sec_times; std::vector<double> doubles; for(auto const& entry : entries) {

Let''s start with this: class whatever ( $myType=''other'' ) { file { "some-config-file": ... content => $myType ? { ''this'' => template("whatever/this.erb"), ''that'' => template("whatever/that.erb"), ''other'' =>

2017-01-09 19:25 GMT+01:00 Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>: > > On Jan 9, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:25 AM, Piotr Padlewski via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 2017-01-09 16:15 GMT+01:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>:

Hi, I'm having a play with LLVM to implement a custom language (for my intellectual curiosity only). I'm wondering how, when using IRBuilder, one can can it to emit a recursive type definition? The code for TypeBuilder explicitly states that it doesn't handle recursive types... I'm after being able to emit, programmatically, stuff like the Named Types example in the Language

Hello. I have an .bc, which defines @foo(%type* arg1, %type* arg2, %type* arg3). Firstly, i do this: runtimeModule = getLazyIRFileModule("runtime.bc", smd, llctx); then this: fooFunction = runtimeModule->getFunction("foo"); myType = runtimeModule->getTypeByName("type"); After that, i'm creating another module: myModule = new Module("My

still pretty new to Ruby, please bare with me :) Say I have a module with a custom type, structured like so: [modules]/mymodule/manifests/init.pp [modules]/mymodule/lib/puppet/provider/mytype/foo.rb [modules]/mymodule/lib/puppet/type/mytype.rb In foo.rb, I''d like to call some custom ruby functions in a module and/ or class. These are generic functions that may be used in other modules,

Hi, I have this small test case- %struct1 = type { i32, i32 } @glob_const = internal constant [4 x %struct1] [%struct1 { i32 4, i32 5 }, %struct1 { i32 8, i32 9 }, %struct1 { i32 16, i32 0 }, %struct1 { i32 32, i32 10 }], align 16 define void @foo() { entry: br label %loop loop: ; preds = %loop, %entry %iv = phi %struct1* [ getelementptr

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at google.com> > To: "Louis Gerbarg" <lgg at apple.com> > Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2014 7:09:49 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Indexing of structs vs arrays in getelementpointer > > > > >

Thanks for the suggestion but datalayout info did not solve the problem! -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 5:26 PM To: Chawla, Pankaj <pankaj.chawla at intel.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] missing simplification in ScalarEvolution? Try adding a datalayout with pointer size

Hi Sanjoy, Thanks for the reply! Your approach sounds good to me! I think 1) is legal as address wraparound in unsigned range doesn't make sense given a positive offset, but I am not sure. I think umax will not be added if we can prove the predicate as known. I am not sure whether umax will get simplified if we add nuw to the expressions. -Pankaj -----Original Message----- From: Sanjoy