similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] Removing FCA constants from the IR

I'm writing a front end for an existing interpreted language with slightly odd semantics for primitive values. Similar to the values in a database table, any value could be null, even for non-pointer types. For example a boolean variable could be true, false, or null. To model this behaviour, I'm passing an {i1, [type]} around for every numeric type. And using insertvalue / extractvalue

Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce this issue? On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied > the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. > > Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD > instructions.

Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD instructions. The common factor is in each case, ECX is set to 0x7fffffff, and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . Additionally, turning the optimization level passed to

Hi all, I've been implementing some stuff that uses the new structs-as-firstclass values code. Apart from some implementation problems, I'm spotting a few structural problems that seem non-trivial to fix. In particular, now that structs are a first class values, the old way or returning multiple values is a bit confusing. The old way had a variable number of arguments to the return

I am trying to employ the ABCD optimization pass to remove unnecessary branches in the code my compiler generates. But in its current form (yesterday's trunk) the pass changes the behavior of the code such that execution yields invalid results, which is obviously not what I want. The switch in the following listing is used to implement a virtual method call, 99999 and 100000 are type

Hello, I am currently trying to translate some custom IR to LLVM-IR and came across and issue. The custom IR has several registers and I am basically try to SSAfy it so it can be easily translated/converted to LLVM-IR. The problem: Since in my custom IR I can reassign every register I have to reassign every new expression with a new llvm Value. But my IR has something like this: REG A = VAR C

I have a form, with 3 fields, then in my controller I get the paramters to run a query but I don''t want to filter with paramters if they are nil or blank... I''m doing this @condition = '''' if(params.....) @condition = @condition + " myparamter = " + params[..... if(params.....) @condition = @condition + " myparamter = " +

Thanks Duncan, Yes, it is a ConstantExpr! Thank you! Now trying to find a clue in ConstantExpr's functions to get that string :-) Regards, Welson On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Welson Sun, > > > Hi, if I have some LLVM code like this: > > > > @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [7 x i8]

Hi, Browse[1]> d4 EVDO_Rev Session_Setup FCA bin counts 50 NA 0 5 1 1 51 NA 0 5 2 1 52 NA 0 5 3 1 53 NA 0 5 4 1 54 NA 0 5 5 1 55 NA 0 5 6 1 56 NA 0 5 7 1 57 NA 0 5 8

I want to keep the translation short and simple (My IR doesn't have control flow so it's basically on basic block) that's why I don't want to rely on alloca/load/store. 2016-02-08 6:08 GMT+01:00 George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>: > Hi! > > I don't know what "the right way" to do this is, but is there any reason > you're against

Hi all, sorry to have sent the same question around. I am quite desperately looking for a solution to this problem and I figured the mailing list is the best bet. In my code, I generate the following function: define i32 @gl.qi([500 x i32] %x, i32 %i) { entry: %x. = alloca [500 x i32] %i. = alloca i32 %0 = alloca [500 x i32] store [500 x i32] %x, [500 x i32]* %x. store i32 %i, i32*

Suppose I have this C++ program: #include <iostream> int main (int argc, char** argv) { while (1) { char cmd[80]; std::cin.getline(cmd, 80); std::cout << "response to " << cmd << std::endl; } } compiled by: c++ -o junk junk.cpp and I have this bash script: #!/bin/bash ./junk <<EOF blah bleh \cC EOF echo "Something

Hello LLVMDev List, It's my first time sending a message to the List - I have been working on a tool for my research project using LLVM. Thanks for your awesome work! I have come across some bytecode like the following with an GetElementPtr instruction in brackets: Bytecode:%3 = call i32 @_Z4funcPKc(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([5 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0)) C++ code:func("bleh");

Hullo, After having my Samba server joined to a domain, I'm now having difficulties configuring winbind. I want to use the idmap_rid backend, and have recompiled Samba from scratch with the requisite rid.so module. However, no matter how "idmap domains / idmap config" is set up, it seems to get totally ignored. Here is my smb.conf: [global] workgroup = DEPARTMENTDOMAIN server

Thank you for the hint. I adjusted the code and it works: The code after replacing inttoptr with getelementptr: define { i32, i32, i8* } @test(i32 %foo, i32 %bar, i8* %sp) { entry: ; push foo (On "stack") %sp_1 = getelementptr i8, i8* %sp, i32 -4 %sp_1_ptr = bitcast i8* %sp_1 to i32* store i32 %foo, i32* %sp_1_ptr, align 4 ; push bar %sp_2 = getelementptr i8, i8* %sp_1,

Hi, I''ve recently had some trouble setting form values in my code - for example: require ''rubygems'' require ''mechanize'' def save(pagename, content, editsummary = '''') agent = WWW::Mechanize.new agent.user_agent = ''Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)'' page =

Hello, I am trying to emulate the "stack" as like on x86 when using push/pop so afterwards I can use LLVM's optimizer passes to simplify (reduce junk) the code. The LLVM IR code: define { i32, i32, i32 } @test(i32 %foo, i32 %bar, i32 %sp) { ; push foo (On "stack") %sp_1 = sub i32 %sp, 4 %sp_1_ptr = inttoptr i32 %sp_1 to i32* store i32 %foo, i32* %sp_1_ptr, align

On 01/07/2010 06:03 PM, Alastair Lynn wrote: > > You'll probably need to use insertvalue to construct your return value. Ah ha! The fact is I didn't really understand the significance of this part when I read it, and so didn't remember it when I needed it. OK, so I have tested it and I can now build up a struct like this %s1 = insertvalue {i32, i32} {i32 0, i32 0}, i32

Hi Can someone explain to me why we cant use uint64_t for extractvalue and insertvalue indices, while GEP on arrays can have indices of any integer type. Basically if I load an array with UINT_MAX+O (O>=2) elements, I can not extract its last element. Given this restriction I feel we have a bug here (uint64_t is passed as a unsigned). This cant happen because of the if (NumElements > 1024)

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:56 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > so just using pointer types instead of i64 will help common cases, but > will not address the general issue. Now part of this does some down to > using array parameters as a substitute for byval/direct parameters. As I > recall, this was done because it allowed a natural partial decomposition >