similar to: [LLVMdev] construct va_list from llvm::Instruction

05.07.2020, 05:22, "Roman Lebedev" <lebedev.ri at gmail.com>: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:18 PM Shawn Landden via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>  Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more. >> >>  This proposal is to add a

On 05.07.20 12:21, Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sun, Jul 5, 2020 at 12:18 PM Shawn Landden via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more. >> >> This proposal is to add a

On 8 Oct 2014, at 18:19, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > The one target I know about where varargs are passed differently from normal arguments is aarch64-apple-ios/macosx. After thinking a bit more, I think this forwarding thunk representation works fine even on that target. Typically a forwarding thunk is called indirectly, or at least through a bitcast, so the LLVM IR call

(As per IRC discussion) I understand that the carry-less multiplication algorithm has it's uses since/and it is implemented as an instruction in many architectures and that adding it as a general-purpose intrinsic will allow us to drop target-specific intrinsics as by-product. What i do *NOT* understand is: what is the actual/main goal/driving factor of adding an LLVM intrinsic for it? The

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=49243 Bug #: 49243 Summary: graphical corruption with GeForce 6150SE nForce 430 Classification: Unclassified Product: Mesa Version: git Platform: x86-64 (AMD64) OS/Version: Linux (All) Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component:

On 4/2/07, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Currently, when declaring a va_list in llvm, one only needs to do: > > %ap = alloca i8 * (Reference : llvm/docs/LangRef.html#int_varargs) This example is x86 specific. alpha allocas an {sbyte*, int} (and does so in llvm-gcc). What the type of the alloca to use is requires the frontend to

Hi everyone, Currently, when declaring a va_list in llvm, one only needs to do: %ap = alloca i8 * (Reference : llvm/docs/LangRef.html#int_varargs) This is OK for x86 and PPC/Darwin ABI because a va_list in these architectures is just a pointer to the stack. The va_start intrinsic just initializes where the pointer points at in the stack. I do not know how the other backends operate, but I

Hi Andrew, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On 4/2/07, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> Currently, when declaring a va_list in llvm, one only needs to do: >> >> %ap = alloca i8 * (Reference : llvm/docs/LangRef.html#int_varargs) >> > > This example is x86 specific. alpha allocas an {sbyte*, int}

Hi everyone, I'm interested in variadic functions and how llvm handles them. I discovered that the Clang frontend is doing a great job at lowering the va_arg (precisely __builtin_va_arg) function into target dependent code. I have also seen the va_arg function that exist at IR level. I found some information about va_arg (IR one) that currently does not support all platform. But since 2009,

For example, Type 2 case, scalar-foo used call by value while vector-foo used call by ref. The question Johannes is asking is whether we can decipher that after the fact, only by looking at the two function signatures, or need some more info (what kind, what's minimal)? I think we need to list up cases of interest, and for each vector ABI of interest, we need to work on the requirements and

http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14792 Problem: In the i386 ABI Page 3-10, it said that the stack is aligned. However, the two example code show that does not handle the alignment correctly when using variadic function. For example, if the size of the first argument is 17, the overflow_arg_area in va_list will be set to "address of first argument + 16" instead of "address of

On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Yun-Wei Lee <lee2041412 at gmail.com> wrote: > Thank for your suggestion. > > I have tried to use GetAlignedArgumentStackSize. > It is so strange that this function may output uncorrectly. > For example, the StackSize will be 40 when handling the third function call > in main. > If I modified the this function, it will fail one test.

Full_Name: Albrecht Gebhardt Version: 0.99.0 OS: alpha, osf4.0 Submission from: (NULL) (143.205.180.40) Both DEC cc and gcc complain (osf4.0, alpha) about applying an unary operator (!) to a non scalar type (va_list arg) in printutils.c I'm not sure if I understood what was intended by "!arg" (see below), but with this patch I at least was able to compile. (and R runs now, but I

This might shed some light on the va_list problem reported previously. -d David Hesprich wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Mar 2000, Damien Miller wrote: > > > > log.c: In function `fatal': > > > log.c:17: `__builtin_va_alist' undeclared (first use in this function) > > > > A few people have reported this - it looks like a gcc vs native cc > > problem.

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > >> A VAARG call requires a lot of computation. Typically the C code for >> va_arg(ap, int) >> > > If you use va_arg in C, are you seeing llvm.vaarg in the output .ll file? > I'm guessing that if you're asking, then no llvm.vaarg is generated. I can not test it on my

<div> </div><div><div><p>Carry-less multiplication[1] instructions exist (at least optionally) on many architectures: armv8, RISC-V, x86_64, POWER, SPARC, C64x, and possibly more.</p><p>This proposal is to add a <code>llvm.clmul</code> instruction. Or if that is contentious, <code>llvm.experimental.bitmanip.clmul</code> instruction.

Am Mi., 29. Mai 2019 um 13:31 Uhr schrieb Shawn Landden via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 10:49 AM David Jones via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Under certain circumstances, my compiler outputs basic blocks having the same function: > > > > bb_97: ;

>Thank you everybody for their input, and for your patience. This is proving harder than expected! :) Thank you for doing the hard part of the work. Hideki -----Original Message----- From: Francesco Petrogalli [mailto:Francesco.Petrogalli at arm.com] Sent: Monday, June 24, 2019 11:26 AM To: Saito, Hideki <hideki.saito at intel.com> Cc: Doerfert, Johannes <jdoerfert at anl.gov>;

Hi everyone, I'm interested in variadic functions and how llvm handles them. I discovered that the Clang frontend is doing a great job at lowering the va_arg (precisely __builtin_va_arg) function into target dependent code. I have also seen the va_arg function that exist at IR level. I found some information about va_arg (IR one) that currently does not support all platform. But since 2009,

Thanks for reviving this topic! Interestingly we have essentially the same fix you mention below ( https://reviews.llvm.org/D62639) as a local change in our Wind River version of LLVM. The reason we didn't try to push it upstream (and in fact have considered removing it) is due to an unfortunate side-effect which is either "expected" or a "bug" depending on your