similar to: Skipping construction/destruction of stack allocated objects

Right, I'm suggesting we keep llvm_shutdown() for users who want this control, but also destroy still-live ManagedStatic instances if llvm_shutdown() is not called. This helps in the case where there is not a clear time when llvm_shutdown() can be called, especially given that LLVM cannot be resurrected in the same process due to current limitations in the pass registry, and perhaps

I'm curious about the design rationale for how ManagedStatic instances are cleaned up, and I'm hoping someone can shed some light on it. Currently, ManagedStatic objects are cleaned up when llvm_shutdown() traverses the global list of initialized objects and calls destroy() on each. This leads to two questions: 1. An assertion enforces that the objects are deleted in reverse order of

Hi all: This question is related to a state machine generated by LLVM for a coroutine. I stripped all coroutine related details to get to the essence of the question. Let's say I have a state machine that looks like this: struct State { FnPtr Fn; State() : Fn(&SomeFunction) {} void Go() { (*Fn)(); } void Stop() { Fn = nullptr; } bool IsDone() { return Fn ==

Hi Ted, Doug said you might have a clang-based checker that would detect when people allocate memory with a BumpPtrAllocator and then construct a class into it that needs destruction. In killing valgrind-found memory leaks in LLVM, I've found several instances of this mistake. They often involve SmallVectors, which only show up as leaks in valgrind if they happen to overflow their static

I'm still getting used to R's scoping. I've run into the following situation value=0 thefunction <- function() print( value ) somefunction <- function() { value=99; thefunction() } somefunction() now, I understand that somefunction() returns 0 because thefunction() was defined with value=0 in its parent envrionment, it dosent look at all in the environment of somefunction. My

I was cursing Matlab again today (what else is new) because the default action for every Matlab command is to spew the result to the console, and one must remember to put that darn ";" at the end of every line. So I just wondered: was there ever a discussion as to providing some modified version of the "<-" and "->" operators in R to do the reverse?

And again... LLVM_BUILD_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON This one is the good one... maybe. On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Alexandre Isoard < alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > That is because I mistyped it: > LLVM_ENABLE_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > LLVM_LINK_LLVM_DYLIB:BOOL=ON > > On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Wink Saville <wink at saville.com>

Hi everybody. I have been searching and trying for an answer, but no luck, so here I go.. Is there anyway to execute multiple commands on a single priority in extensions.conf? eg: exten => X.,1,Dial(SIP/1111) & somefunction(${EXTEN}) I need the dial command to dial internal extensions, and the "somefunction" to kick of our own outgoing system for redirection to outside lines;

Dear R-users, I'm trying to work out a way to set default values for arguments in a function which includes the optional argument '...'. In practice, I have a 'plot' method for a function which specifies different types of plots. Every different plot should have different default arguments (for example for 'col', 'ylim' etc), plus the argument '...' to

Hello, I assumed SCEV purpose was to be a normal form, but then I wondered which one of those is the normal form: (zext i16 (trunc i32 %a to i16) to i32) vs (-((%a /u 65536) *u 65536) + %a) The first one is nice for interval analysis, and known bit analysis. The second one is nice when plugged into gep of 2d arrays. -- *Alexandre Isoard* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi Kostya, Evgenii, and David, Recently I've been making some incremental changes to the XRay runtime implementation in compiler-rt to reduce the reliance on the C++ standard library components that might have external linkage dependencies. This involves not using containers from the STL and not using non-trivially destructible C++11 thread_local objects. I was wondering whether the

Hello, Yes? Where is allActive defined, I couldn't find it. Basically, a BB is control divergent if it's execution depends on a branch that itself depends on a divergent ssa value. On Fri, Jul 21, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com> wrote: > What would be the definition of “isControlDivergent(BasicBlock*)”; the > complementary of “allActive(BasicBlock*)” –

Hi all, I am trying to use llvm-gcc to link shared libraries on windows/mingw32. When I try to link libraries that contain functions declared with __declspec(dllexport) someFunction(); I get the link error: Cannot export _someFunction: symbol not found Removing the declspec directive solves the problem, but this is not a very feasible solution for me. Using 'regular' gcc does not

On 07/05/2017 03:10 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > Ah, ok. I read it wrong. In *neither* case it is UB. > > Hum, can an implementation define it as UB? :-) Nope :-) The only case I've thought of where we could add these for C++ would be on conversions to (most) enums (because they used signed underlying types and the out-of-bounds mapping won't generally be one of the allowed

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Alexandre Isoard <alexandre.isoard at gmail.com> wrote: > LLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB Where/when/how do you specify LLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB and LLVM_LINK_DYLIB? I tried the following on the cmake command line: $ cmake -G Ninja .. -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/home/wink/opt/llvm -DLLVM_ENABLE_DYLIB=true -DLLVM_LINK_DYLIB=true And got: ... -- Performing Test

Hi, Even if there are no ways in which a *frontend* can produce nsw truncs, it may still be useful to have if optimization passes can usefully attach nsw to truncates (after proving the truncates don't "overflow"). For instance in %a = ashr i64 %v, i32 33 %t = trunc %a to i32 the trunc can be marked nsw. However, the burden of proof here is to show that we can do some useful

On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 07/04/2017 01:41 AM, Dr.-Ing. Christoph Cullmann via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Hi Alexandre, >>> >>> LLVM currently doesn't have trunc nsw/nuw, no. >>> Which frontend would emit such instructions? Any application in mind?

According to 6.3.1.3/3 of the C standard (I didn't check C++): "3 Otherwise, the new type is signed and the value cannot be represented in it; either the result is implementation-defined or an implementation-defined signal is raised." I *think* that means that IF a signal is raised then the signal raised could be one that you can't guarantee to be able to return from

Note that there is a slight difficulty due to the fact that we "sink" the trunc: (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) + (65536 * ({0,+,1}<nuw><%bb> /u 65536) Here the recurrence lost it's <nuw> and got reduced to a i16 (on the left), but not on the right. But we can prove: - that (zext i16 {0,+,1}<%bb> to i32) has the same 16 LSB than (i32

Ok. To go back to the original issue, would it be meaningful to add a SCEVUMax(0, BTC) on the final BTC computed by SCEV? So that it does not use "negative values"? On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:40 PM Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 8/15/2018 2:27 PM, Alexandre Isoard wrote: > > I'm not sure I understand the poison/undef/UB distinctions. >