similar to: [LLVMdev] Is ConstantFoldConstantExpression meant to be idempotent?

Adam, I just fixed this issue a few days ago. A version from the trunk should work for you. Cheers, Nadav -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of ihusar Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2011 15:52 To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to use ConstantFoldConstantExpression? I forgot to mention, that I use

I forgot to mention, that I use LLVM release 2.8, I did not try it with the latest revision, but I expect that I am rather doing something wrong than using non-implemented functions. On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 14:09:57 +0100, ihusar <ihusar at fit.vutbr.cz> wrote: > Hello, > > i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, > however

Hello, i need to fold constants, i found that a function ConstantFoldConstantExpression could be used, however I am not able to make it fold anything. Could you please give me some advice, what I am doing wrong? My code looks something like this: //data layout is obtained from clang-generated code for triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi with added v32:32:32 const char* const TARGET_DATA_LAYOUT =

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Joel E. Denny <jdenny at etinternational.com> wrote: > For example, for my platform, llc folds the add but not the getelementptr > in: > >  @a = global i8* getelementptr (i8* null, i64 add (i64 3, i64 2)) This gets folded when it's read in; there's no other way to represent a constant 'i64 add (i64 3, i64 2)' in LLVM than 'i64

Hi Nick, On Tue, 26 Oct 2010, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Joel E. Denny wrote: > > Given this LLVM assembly: > > > > @a = global i8* getelementptr (i8* null, i64 mul (i64 ptrtoint (i32* > > getelementptr (i32* null, i32 1) to i64), i64 2)) > > > > llc fails an assertion: > > > > llc: /home/jdenny/llvm-svn/include/llvm/Support/Casting.h:202:

Hi all, Just a quick question about the idempotence of an intrinsic function. Is there a way to specify that an intrinsic function is idempotent? I am trying to give as much information about the intrinsic function I added to LLVM so that LLVM can do optimizations otherwise disabled. Thanks a lot in advance. Bin

As part of PhD research I integrated support for code generation of idempotent (re-executable) code regions into LLVM, along with a supporting IR-level analysis to identify and demarcate large "semantically" idempotent regions [1]. Some have expressed interest the code, so here is a link that contains some documentation and pointers to the source hosted on GitHub:

At least I think the word I want "idempotent" - it has been a long debugging session and my brain is fried so I am not sure. What I mean is that as.name applied to a name gives an error. > as.name("foo") foo > as.name(as.name("foo")) Error in as.name(x) : character argument required It might help if it were a bit more flexible about the arguments it

Our code calls del_vqs multiple times, assuming it's idempotent. commit 3ec7a77bb3089bb01032fdbd958eb5c29da58b49 virtio_pci: free up vq->priv broke this assumption, by adding kfree there, so multiple calls cause double free. Fix it up. Fixes: 3ec7a77bb3089bb01032fdbd958eb5c29da58b49 Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin at oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst

Our code calls del_vqs multiple times, assuming it's idempotent. commit 3ec7a77bb3089bb01032fdbd958eb5c29da58b49 virtio_pci: free up vq->priv broke this assumption, by adding kfree there, so multiple calls cause double free. Fix it up. Fixes: 3ec7a77bb3089bb01032fdbd958eb5c29da58b49 Reported-by: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin at oracle.com> Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst

as.name(as.name("ss")) gives an error in R (0.90 and earlier) but should of course give the same as simply as.name("ss") This reminds me of similar bug/problem... which I don't recall. Yes, I should build tests like these into "make test-Specific" .. Martin --please do not edit the information below-- Version: platform = sparc-sun-solaris2.5.1 arch =

Hi all, We noticed a lot of unnecessary ptrtoint instructions that stand in way of some of our optimizations; the code pattern looks like this: bb1: %int1 = ptrtoint %struct.s* %ptr1 to i64 bb2: %int2 = ptrtoint %struct.s* %ptr2 to i64 %bb3: %phi.node = phi i64 [ %int1, %bb1 ], [%int2, %bb2 ] %ptr = inttoptr i64 %phi.node to %struct.s* In short, the pattern above arises due to: 1.

[AMD Official Use Only - Internal Distribution Only] Hi everyone, Asan instrumentation introduces a ptrtoint instruction which is used as an argument to a number of runtime functions. Every instrumented load/store ends up having at least one ptrtoint attached to its address. However, the community has now raised a number of concerns about the use of LLVM generated ptrtoint & inttoptr [1]

Hi, I am trying to figure out how to read arguments of a call instruction. I had few questions based on that I have the following C Code 1 #include <stdio.h> 2 3 struct my_struct 4 { 5 int a; 6 int b; 7 }; 8 9 struct my_struct abc; 10 void p_ptr ( unsigned long j) 11 { 12 printf ( "%lx \n", j ); 13 } 14 15 void struct_ptr ( struct my_struct *

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still

Thanks. So what about a fragment like this: (taken from fast-isel.ll in X86 ) define void @ptrtoint_i1(i8* %p, i1* %q) nounwind { %t = ptrtoint i8* %p to i1 store i1 %t, i1* %q ret void } TIA. On 09/29/2014 02:16 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> On Sep 29, 2014, at 1:51 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> >> What kind of C or C++ code will emit

On 06/20/2017 03:26 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > Hi, Adrien, Hello Hal! Thanks for your answer! > Thanks for reporting this. I recommend that you file a bug report at > https://bugs.llvm.org/ Will do! > Whenever I see reports of missed optimization opportunities in the face > of ptrtoint/inttoptr, my first question is: why are these instructions > present in the first place? At

Hi Shankha, > 24 p_ptr ((unsigned long)&abc); > call void @p_ptr(i64 ptrtoint (%struct.my_struct* @abc to i64)) > nounwind, !dbg !31 > > Q.1 At line no 24 I try to read the address of global variable abc. > The address is type casted > from struct * to int * for which ptrtoint. I guess you mean "is type casted from struct * to unsigned

On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com> wrote: >>>> In C, integer to point conversions are implementation defined and >>>> depends on what the addressing structure of the execution environment >>>> is. Given the current definition of ptrtoint