similar to: Instcombine and bitcast of vector. Wrong CHECKs in cast.ll, miscompile in instcombine?

Hey Duncan, hey everybody else, I just stumbled upon a problem in the latest llvm-gcc trunk which is related to my previous problem with the 64bit ABI and structs: Given the following code: struct float3 { float x, y, z; }; extern "C" void __attribute__((noinline)) test(float3 a, float3* res) { res->y = a.y; } int main(void) { float3 a; float3 res; test(a,

Hi Ralf, > I do not understand why this behaviour is required. What is the problem > in having a function receive a single struct-parameter with three floats > compared to two scalar parameters? > > source-code (C++): > struct Test3Float { float a, b, c; }; > void test(Test3Float param, Test3Float* result) { ... } if you compile this with GCC, you will see that it too

Uh, sorry, did not pay attention where I was replying ;) Hey Duncan, I do not understand why this behaviour is required. What is the problem in having a function receive a single struct-parameter with three floats compared to two scalar parameters? source-code (C++): struct Test3Float { float a, b, c; }; void test(Test3Float param, Test3Float* result) { ... } bitcode:

Hi! I want to know the way that calls are answer in this case... I have queue1 and queue2, one agent that receive call from both queues. queue1 <- call1 queue1 <- call2 queue2 <- call3 queue2 <- call4 In my test the agent answer calls in this order: call1,call3,call2 and call4. I think this must be in this order call1,call2, call3, call4 like a big FIFO. Its ok this behavior? Could

Hi, This may be a problem with my config file but I am finding that customers (and more importantly my boss) that are using outlook express when using test66/67 (upgraded from test60 + from address patch) are having message reappear after being fully deleted (not just marked) but are unreadable, sometimes blank headers appear too but again no message. Since it is affecting my boss he has told me

I just tried upgrading one of our mail cluster servers to test60 from test57. We have dovecot connecting to 3 different MySQL tables in 3 sql conf files. The error seems to stem from this: Jan 13 14:57:59 svr21 dovecot: auth(sql8): file auth-client-connection.c: line 31 (auth_client_send): assertion failed: (conn->refcount > 1) After this the auth process gets killed with signal 6.

To reproduce the issue, please use the command line "opt -simplifycfg filename". target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" %struct.G = type { %struct.ordered_index_node*, i32 } %struct.ordered_index_node = type { %struct.B, %struct.F } %struct.B = type { i32 } %struct.F = type { i32*, i32* }

http://dovecot.org/test/ I've been running this for two hours now without problems. I guess it's pretty stable. - Keyword support finally included. Not too well tested, but I couldn't get it to break. Doesn't store the keywords into maildir/mbox yet. Hopefully soon. - Major reorganization of code in dovecot-auth, and not yet finished. Load balancing between multiple auth

In 3.1, the backend is very slow to legalize types. Following is the code snippet which may be the culprit: %Result.i.i.i97 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i96= alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i95 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i94 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i93 = alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i92= alloca i33, align 8 %Result.i.i.i91 = alloca i33, align 8

Hi, The phase of instruction combine cannot handle the instruction %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 generated by the phase of CFG simplification and the compiler generates an assertion failure. I wonder whether this is valid LLVM IR: %4 = select i1 %tobool.i, metadata !12, metadata !10 Before CFGSimplify cond.true.i: ; preds = %entry

Hi Ralf, > llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm -O3 produces this: > > %struct.float3 = type { float, float, float } > define void @test(double %a.0, float %a.1, %struct.float3* nocapture > %res) nounwind noinline { > entry: > %tmp8 = bitcast double %a.0 to i64 ; <i64> [#uses=1] > %tmp9 = zext i64 %tmp8 to i96 ; <i96> [#uses=1] >

There seems to be a problem when setting the default authentication method to passwd-file when they use the same file (which they frequently do): auth default { mechanisms = plain userdb = passwd-file /passwd passdb = passwd-file /passwd ... } The log files show dovecot: Jan 11 14:41:40 Info: Dovecot v1.0-test60 starting up dovecot: Jan 11 14:41:49 Info: auth(default):

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

After I spend some time working with the function attribute* deduction pass** [1,3], I would like to propose a "proper" organization***. Why? Because we do not derive nearly as many attributes as we could****, while we do maintain various (separate and diffently organized) "data-flow-like analyses" to do so. What else? I propose a single optimistic data-flow

http://dovecot.org/test/ No-one had been testing 1.0-tests with Evolution? It was pretty much completely broken with messages having attachments. - test58's output stream code change were entirely wrong and caused bad breakages with mbox. - Named pipes are now treated as write-only mboxes (blocks if no-one is reading, perhaps it should timeout in a few seconds?) - FETCH BODY[n.xxx]

Dear All, I think I understand the motivation for these node types, but I'm not positive: " /// SHL_PARTS/SRA_PARTS/SRL_PARTS - These operators are used for expanded /// integer shift operations, just like ADD/SUB_PARTS. The operation /// ordering is: /// [Lo,Hi] = op [LoLHS,HiLHS], Amt SHL_PARTS, SRA_PARTS, SRL_PARTS " Okay, for one thing, I can't

Hi. I found that, in all the LLVM IR I get from the source C file. the unnamed values all created by the "load" instruction. eg: ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @add(i32 %x, i32 %y) #0 { entry: %x.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %y.addr = alloca i32, align 4 %c = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 %x, i32* %x.addr, align 4 store i32 %y, i32* %y.addr, align 4 * %0 =

Dear List I have run into some problems with boot.ci from package boot. When I try to obtain a confidence interval of type bca, boot.ci() returns the following error when the data set i large: Error in bca.ci(boot.out, conf, index[1L], L = L, t = t.o, t0 = t0.o, : estimated adjustment 'a' is NA Below is an example that produces the above mentioned error on my machine. library(boot)

Hello all, the scenario: Carrier ----S2M------ * -----S2M------Siemens | | SIP Clients and many other features With much help from the list, the PRI links are without alarms and inbound calls are working fine (from both: Carrier and Siemens). But I am not able to dial wether outbound nor to the Siemens PBX. I allways get the message: == Everyone is busy

These self-host builders all just starting failing. It looks like tablegen is being miscompiled. The first failed builds: (1) http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-i386-linux-selfhost/builds/208 (2) http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/dragonegg-i386-linux/builds/194 (3) http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/dragonegg-x86_64-linux/builds/197 The odd thing is that I can't see any suspicious