similar to: Default alignment for 'malloc'

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 02:43:03PM +0200, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev wrote: > 2016-10-03 13:55 GMT+02:00 Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > > I am trying to implement some new alignment based optimisations in our > > target backend, and I am wondering if there a way a target can specify that > > ‘malloc’, ‘realloc’ and ‘calloc’

Hello, when looking at "Writing R Extensions" with mem-allocation in mind, I wondered, which functions to use to substitute malloc(), calloc(), realloc() and strdup() and free(). It looked like Calloc() or R_Calloc() might be useful for some of my tasks, but when trying to use R_Calloc() for example, I got some error messages which I don't see where they are coming from. Maybe I

There is no way this will work first try, but there is no reason this cant work with some fixups. We have not been testing it, so im sure there will be glitches. I'd start by running the test-suite with cmake, and see how it goes, then move on to LNT. On September 2, 2016 at 4:18:29 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev (llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org(mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org)) wrote:

Hi, > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:05 +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: >> You don't check for malloc failure. I've made a patch that is possibly >> wrong but it saves the program from SIGSEGV and replaces it with SIGABRT. On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Philipp Schafft wrote: > But I have a question: > Not all of them (only had a brief look at the patch) look to be in a >

Sorry, for j On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:16 PM, David Vandevoorde <daveed at vandevoorde.com> wrote: > > Another valid implementation of malloc is one that actually returns a > non-null pointer in this case, and for such an implementation, a valid > reduction is "int main() { return 1; }". That reduction is IMO not > only valid, but also defensible and maybe

On May 1, 2008, at 12:47 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 30 April 2008 20:01, David Vandevoorde wrote: > >> Correct. It's an extreme form of garbage collection, I suppose ;-) >> >> (In theory, it can also be assumed to fail -- because an >> implementation is allowed to make any call to malloc fail -- though >> that's probably not useful.) >

On Mon, Jun 26, 2017 at 5:04 AM, ORiordan, Martin <martin.oriordan at intel.com > wrote: > Thanks Sean and Silva. > > > > I guess what I was seeking was a URL that I could point (non-compiler) > people at, but I guess no such reference exists. What I can do if > reference bot the source manager and use ‘-mllvm -debug-pass=Structure’ > for each optimisation level,

On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 5:53 PM <luke-tierney at uiowa.edu> wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Jun 2020, peter dalgaard wrote: > > > So this wasn't tested for a month? > > > > Anyways, Free() is just free() with a check that we're not freeing a null pointer, followed by setting the pointer to NULL. At that point of tcltk.c, we have > > > > for (objc = i = 0;

I am often asked what optimisations "our" compiler performs at each level. But "our" compiler is actually CLang/LLVM which we have retargeted to our proprietary target. Most of the work we do is in maintaining our target specific backend. Certainly there are optimisations that we do to take best advantage of our instruction set during lowering and instruction selection, and

I agree, it's much clearer, it just takes runs at multiple opt levels and therefore I don't find it to be a "one stop shop". On Jun 24, 2017 8:44 PM, "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Looking at PassManagerBuilder can be useful because there are sometimes > comments giving some idea of the intent of the particular choice of passes, > but

According to the LLVM manual, for both malloc and alloca: "If a constant alignment is specified, the value result of the allocation is guaranteed to be aligned to at least that boundary. If not specified, or if zero, the target can choose to align the allocation on any convenient boundary." I don't see the rationale for the second sentence, because it means that alloca and malloc

I've committed the change to use Free instead of free in tcltk.c and sys-std.c (r78652 for R-devel, r78653 for R-patched). We might consider either moving Calloc/Free out of the Windows remapping or moving the remapping into header files so everything seeing our header files uses our calloc/free. Either would be less brittle that the current status. Best, luke On Sun, 7 Jun 2020, peter

Would it be possible to include a re-export of the malloc, calloc, realloc, and free being used by opus file's implementation of OpusTags handling? This might seem redundant or ridiculous but I'm having difficulty getting the right versions that my compiler allows that's compatible with libopusfile. In the debugger I can see that the memory location that my malloc is returning is

We'll be doing something similar for our OpenVMS port.  Right now I'm using "AsmStreamer->GetCommentOS()" and writing to the stream at the assembler level but that gets aligned on a right-side column (the column is hardcoded) and you have to be in verbose mode.  So if you come up with something or have a quick design, post it so perhaps we can leverage each other's work. 

On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 6:24 PM, Benjamin Kramer via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > In terms of performance shared_ptr has a number of disadvantages. One > is that it always uses atomics even though most IntrusiveRefCntPtrs > are used in single-threaded contexts. Another is weak_ptr adding a lot > of complexity to the implementation, IntrusiveRefCntPtr

Right but then you'll have to call each opt level. Have u looked in the pass manager? On Jun 24, 2017 3:52 PM, "Sean Silva via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The most definitive list you can probably hope to get will be obtained by > passing -mllvm -debug-pass=Structure to a clang invocation. > > -- Sean Silva > > On Jun 24, 2017 7:10 AM,

On 5/25/12 2:16 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi John, > >>>> I'm implementing the alloc_size function attribute in clang. >>> does anyone actually use this attribute? And if they do, can it >>> really buy >>> them anything? How about "implementing" it by ignoring it! >> > ... >> >> Currently, SAFECode has a pass which

On Jan 11, 2009, at 11:22 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >>> There is no good reason for malloc to be an instruction anymore. >>> I'd >>> be very happy if it got removed. Even if we keep it, malloc/alloca >>> should be extended to optionally take 64-bit sizes. >> >> I'm curious. Do we want to keep the free instruction? > > No,

Hi, When looking into the bug in https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=21421, I found a regression test in Transforms/InstCombine/malloc-free-delete.ll against me to directly fix it. The test is, define i1 @foo() { ; CHECK-LABEL: @foo( ; CHECK-NEXT: ret i1 false %m = call i8* @malloc(i32 1) %z = icmp eq i8* %m, null call void @free(i8* %m) ret i1 %z } According to

Yes, it looks like passing ‘EnableVec’ and ‘EnableSLPVec’ to ‘Args.hasFlag’ should be replaced with ‘false’ and then it has the expected behaviour. MartinO From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev Sent: 01 March 2018 18:02 To: 'Richard Smith' <richard at metafoo.co.uk> Cc: 'Clang Dev'