similar to: [LLVMdev] Get precise line/column debug info from LLVM IR

I tried to emit IR for a function that returns the sum between an signed char and a double in C++, just to see how Clang handles type implicit casting. Can you explain me why Clang converted the char type into a 32-bit integer type before casting it to a floating point? Can a sitofp i8 %3 to double be done or is it wrong? define i32 @_Z5sumad(i8 signext %x, double %y) #0 { %1 = alloca i8,

Hi I am using clang-6 to compile this C++ code and I see a strange temporary variable allocated at expression address 0x7ff1131536e8. If I change the ternary operator at line 483 to an if-else, the temporary is not allocated. Thanks Variables: ========= FFMPEGVideoCapture ffmpeg_video_capture_; cv::VideoCapture opencv_video_capture_; Function: ======== bool

Hi Piotr, Thanks. Yeah, it seemed a little weird, but it was what got me closest. I found out that the matcher I supplied here was working for clang-query 3.8.1. I'm working on a clang-tidy module for 4.0.0 - it's not working there. Could you elaborate on the "onImplicitObjectArgument"? There is no document on it on the clang page. So I wouldn't know how it works or what it

Hi guys, I am trying to extract the class name of a parameter to a method call in objective-C. The code I am parsing is: - (void)testAddConcreteDataModel:(DFDemoDataModelOne*)helpmeh { [self.dataModels addObject:helpmeh]; } And the result I need is the type of class of helpmeh, which is "DFDemoDataModelOne". So far I have the following code, which outputs:

Hi Piotr, I think I found a working matcher: match ifStmt(hasCondition(implicitCastExpr(hasImplicitDestinationType(isInteger()), has(cxxMemberCallExpr(callee(cxxMethodDecl(hasName("compare"))), hasArgument(0, declRefExpr().bind("str2")), callee(memberExpr(has(declRefExpr().bind("str1"))))))))).bind("case1") This one bind to both str1 and str2 in

Adding cfe-dev, because it is related to clang, not LLVM. 2016-11-27 22:34 GMT+01:00 Piotr Padlewski <piotr.padlewski at gmail.com>: > Hi Mads, > Can you provide the code that you run clang-query on, or at least AST for > the fragment you want to match? > > Piotr > > 2016-11-26 22:27 GMT+01:00 Mads Ravn via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > >: >

When I compile my C fibonacci example fib.c with 'clang -O3 -c -emit-llvm -o fib-clang.bc fib.c&& llvm-dis fib-clang.bc' I get fib-clang.ll that has some degree of inlining in it. But when I get an equivalent to fib.c file fib.ll and run it through opt with the command 'llvm-as fib.ll&& opt -O3 fib.bc -o fib-opt.bc&& llvm-dis fib-opt.bc' resulting

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Hello everybody, On the documentation page for the tailcallelim pass you can read: "This pass transforms functions that are prevented from being tail recursive by an associative expression to use an accumulator variable, thus compiling the typical naive factorial or fib implementation into efficient code” However, I don’t see this behavior when trying to compile this variant of the

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

Hi, I have configured two machines for testing gfs filesystems. They are attached to a iscsi device and centos versions are: CentOS release 5.4 (Final) Linux node1.fib.upc.es 2.6.18-164.el5 #1 SMP Thu Sep 3 03:33:56 EDT 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux The problem is if I try to mount a gfs partition it hangs. [root at node2 ~]# cman_tool status Version: 6.2.0 Config Version: 29 Cluster Name:

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

Here's my translation of the Fibonacci example into OCaml: open Printf open Llvm let build_fib m = let fibf = define_function "fib" (function_type i32_type [| i32_type |]) m in let bb = builder_at_end (entry_block fibf) in let one = const_int i32_type 1 and two = const_int i32_type 2 in let argx = param fibf 0 in set_value_name "AnArg" argx; let

> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, > etc. > > If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful > to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, > and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. It looks like my interface will look vaguely like this. Functions like

Hi all, (thanks to Reid, who gave nice advice) the fibonacci function code works now. Please find attached file. but... the performance is adequate, say, for byte-code interpretation mode and not for optimized JITing. fibonacci function of 35 from attached file is more then 100 times slower then the following code compiled with "gcc -O2" : ----------- #include <iostream> int

Hello, I recently noticed a performance issue of JIT execution vs native code of the following simple logic which computes the Fibonacci sequence: uint64_t fib(int n) { if (n <= 2) { return 1; } else { return fib(n-1) + fib(n-2); } } When compiled natively using clang++ with -O3, it took 0.17s to compute fib(40). However, when executing using LLJIT, fed with the IR output of "clang++

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: >>> Does there happen to be a C interface to the jit ? Our scheme impl >>> has a good FFI, but it doesn't do C++. If not, this is no big deal, >>> and i'll just write something myself. >> >> No, but such bindings would be *very useful*. And since there might be >> other people who need them this