similar to: Indices for extractvalue and insertvalue

Hi, I'm working with some hand-written LLVM IR which llvm-as doesn't like, giving me the error "Invalid indices for extractvalue". However, as far as I can tell, the code is valid according to the Language Reference Manual. A cut-down example of the kind of code in question is: %struct.s = type {i32,i32,<2 x i32>} define void @entry(i32* %out) { %1 = extractvalue

Hi, The 'extractvalue' and 'insertvalue' instructions only allow constant indices. If I have an array with variable indices, I need to store it into memory, and then load its sub-elements via GEP. Why could 'extractvalue' not support variable indices like GEP? In general, in which case should source code be translated into 'extractvalue' , and when should

Hi Andrew, > If I change the code such that the structure is defined with a > 2-element array instead of a 2-element vector: > %struct.s = type {i32,i32,[2 x i32]} > then llvm-as does not report an error, hence why I believe the problem > is specific to accessing vector components. correct, extractvalue doesn't work on vectors, you need to use to use extractelement for

Several instruction classes override getType() when the instruction always creates a particular type of value. For example, the result of insertelement is always a vector, so InsertElementInst overrides getType() to return a VectorType*. This makes perfect sense. However, ExtractValueInst and InsertValueInst override getType() to return a PointerType*, which does not make sense and is

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

I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue getting my sub-structure is not getting the correct data. I have these types: %outer = type { i32, %inner, i1 } %inner = type { double, i32 } The trouble is that when I have a value of type %outer then proceed to extract the components of the

Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, 1 Jul 2019 at 19:56, David Greene via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> llvm.creal.* - Overloaded intrinsic to extract the real part of a >> complex value >> declare float @llvm.creal.c32(c32 %Val) >> declare double @llvm.creal.c64(c64 %Val) > > What are

I also saw this issue before. Llvm seems have trouble returning general struct values from functions. One easy workaround is to use packed struct type. Hope this helps. -Peng On Sunday, December 30, 2012, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having an issue where a certain set of types and insert/extractvalue > are producing the incorrect values. It appears as though extractvalue >

Hi Dan, > Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class > aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the > concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as > a container for multiple values. I'm not saying we don't have some way of modeling multiple return values, I'm sayin the explicit concept

> > On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: >> I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any >> performance >> improvement from optimization passes... > > I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. > This example > function squares a complex number: Something is definitely wrong with the way

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.

Hi Dan, > The requirement to update all callers' call instructions when a callee > gets a new return value is also present in the current MRV-mechanism > with getresult. It's not been a problem we've worried about so far. I didn't mean you can get away without updating your calllers, I'm just saying it could be a bit easier. > Can you give some background about

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

Here is the LangRef part of the patch. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 2:11 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 11, 2010, at 4:30 PM, Talin wrote: > > I'm working on a new version of the patch. >> >> Another thing I wanted to ask about - do you prefer to have one giant >> patch that has everything, or a series of incremental patches? I can

On Jun 2, 2008, at 8:45 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Dan, > >> Yes, the intention is that getresult will be removed once first-class >> aggregates are a ready replacement. This won't leave LLVM missing the >> concept of returning multiple values; a struct can be thought of as >> a container for multiple values. > I'm not saying we don't have some

On Jan 12, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Talin wrote: > Here is the LangRef part of the patch. > +<p>The union type is used to represent a set of possible data types which can > + exist at a given location in memory (also known as an "untagged" > + union). [...] This wording is somewhat misleading; memory in LLVM has no types. How about: "A union type describes an

My compiler is generating a bunch of code including the following line: %57 = call fastcc i32 @aux(%1* %0, %1 %1, %1 %46, i32 0, %4 %2) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %57 The program works fine as long as this isn't a tail call. If I compile via a .ll and insert "tail" by hand, the program segfaults. However, if I make it a tail call and return an undef i8* or void instead

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 at 19:11, Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > One option is to make the complex type a special kind of vector, or a > special kind of aggregate (I have a slight preference for the latter). > That gives us an existing set of accessors. I agree non-vector. If nothing else a vector of complexes seems like a sensible concept which would be harder if a

While playing with SLPVectorizer, I notice that it will happily vectorize cases involving extractelement/insertelement, but won't vectorize isomorphic cases involving extractvalue/insertvalue (such as the attached example). Is that something that could be straightforward to add to SLPVectorizer, or are there some hard issue? In particular, the transformation would seem to require casts of

Hello all! I'm working on a library with bignum support, and I wanted to try LLVM as an apparently simpler and more portable system to my current design (a Haskell script which spits out mixed C and assembly). Porting the script to use the LLVM bindings instead of the current hack was pretty easy. But I have a few remaining questions: (1) Are bignums exposed to any higher-level