similar to: Questions about ctor/dtor attribute related diagnostics

On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 5:03 PM Xiangling Liao via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I noticed that there are some diagnostics discrepancies between clang and gcc related to `__attribute__((constructor(n)))` and `__attribute__((destructor(n)))`. > > [clang] > It seems priorities >65535 and <0 on ctor/dtor functions are ignored and are set

> On 24 Mar 2015, at 14:55, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Rinaldini Julien > <julien.rinaldini at heig-vd.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just

On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 06:29:53PM -0500, Lyude Paul wrote: > This was made apparent by what appeared to be a regression in the > mainline kernel that started introducing suspend/resume issues for > nouveau: > > a0c9259dc4e1 (irq/matrix: Spread interrupts on allocation) I'm just a dumb user here, but I confirm: CPU: AMD Phenom II X6 1055T, GPU: GTX 560 Ti 100% fail to

Hi, I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just ignore it. So, to be able to *flag* my functions I’m trying to add a *real* attribute to clang. I’ve added a new attribute to clang in tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td: def NoFLA : Attr { let Spellings =

For a while we've been having issues with seemingly random interrupts coming from nvidia cards when resuming them. Originally the fix for this was thought to be just re-arming the MSI interrupt registers right after re-allocating our IRQs, however it seems a lot of what we do is both wrong and not even nessecary. This was made apparent by what appeared to be a regression in the mainline

For a while we've been having issues with seemingly random interrupts coming from nvidia cards when resuming them. Originally the fix for this was thought to be just re-arming the MSI interrupt registers right after re-allocating our IRQs, however it seems a lot of what we do is both wrong and not even nessecary. This was made apparent by what appeared to be a regression in the mainline

For a while we've been having issues with seemingly random interrupts coming from nvidia cards when resuming them. Originally the fix for this was thought to be just re-arming the MSI interrupt registers right after re-allocating our IRQs, however it seems a lot of what we do is both wrong and not even nessecary. This was made apparent by what appeared to be a regression in the mainline

Hi All, I need your guidance about a custom attribute. I have defined one for variables. It is accepted in the source code (without any warnings from clang), for example in following snippet. #define NEWATTR __attribute__((moviAttr(1))) int main() { NEWATTR volatile unsigned int a = 5; volatile unsigned int *p; p = &a; return (a+*p); } and actually when I Dump the declaration, after

Hi Asit, thanks for the reply. But I guess I was not clear in my question. Actually, i dont want to use __ATTRIBUTE__((ANNOTATE("MOVIATTR"))), since in documentation it is stated that "This intrinsic allows annotation of local variables with arbitrary strings. This can be useful for special purpose optimizations that want to look for these annotations. These have no other

Hi John, I have looked into the EmitAutoVarAlloca() in CGDecl.cpp. However, I could not figure out how to employ my custom attribute for code generation. For example, my custom attribute is visible in CGDecl.cpp but how can I generate based on my custom attribute if (D.hasAttr<myCustomAttri>()) { //What to do here? } What I wan in IR is something like below. Without Custom Attribute:

When building with Clang for the MSP430 architecture against headers distributed with TI MSP GCC, interrupt service routine interrupt(vector_number) attribute is rejected: __attribute__ ((interrupt(USCI_A0_VECTOR))) void ISR(void) { } error: 'interrupt' attribute parameter 48 is out of bounds This is due to the check in tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDeclAttr.cpp:5104 unsigned Num

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><style type="text/css"><!-- #msg dl { border: 1px #006 solid; background: #369; padding:

Just a note: I just checked in a change that corrects some very non-intuitive behavior of the AllocaInst & MallocInst classes. Before, the constructor would take a Type which would specify the return type of the instruction, instead of the operand type. Now it takes the operand type directly. More concretely: LLVM Code: X = alloca int ; int* Y = malloc int * ; int** Old C++

Hi, the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like this: Instruction *InsertBefore=0 any reason there's no "const" before "Instruction" ? - Volodya

Vladimir, Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. Simple enough? Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 01:02, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi, > the insertBefore parameter, present in all constructors, is declared like > this: > > Instruction *InsertBefore=0 > > any reason there's

I'm not opposed to mutable and its probably reasonable in this case. However, I'd defer to Chris' opinion for anything in VMCore. We try to limit the number of changes/additions there because the impact can be quite large if something goes wrong. Reid. On Thu, 2004-06-24 at 04:41, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hi Reid, > > > Instructions are members of a linked list.

While trying to add a pass to the ARM back end I'm getting quite a lot of this assertion failure: Pass.cpp:255: llvm::Pass* llvm::PassInfo::createPass() const: Assertion `NormalCtor && "Cannot call createPass on PassInfo without default ctor!"' failed. A simple way to get it is to add two lines to ARMTargetMachine.cpp: #include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h" and

On Tue, 20 Sep 2016 10:17:14 -0300 Anderson Hoffmann do Carmo via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > Hi for all! > > I have Samba 4.3.9-Ubuntu DC in ADDC_Mode and it's working perfectly > But in Samba Log have this: "samba: setproctitle not initialized, > please either call setproctitle_init() or link against libbsd-ctor." > The libbsd-dev package is