On Wednesday 01 August 2007 08:49, Gordon Henriksen wrote:
Can't you just use
Value* Args[] = { CI-GetOperand(1),
CI-GetOperand(2) };
CallInst *NC = new CallInst(GCRead, Args, Args + 2,
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 18:43, Chandler Carruth wrote:
)
You missed one client, the indirect usage by llvm2cpp, which _generates_
calls to CallInst, but doesn't make them directly. It is currently
generating calls to the old API, and causes test/Feature/llvm2cpp to fail.
Whoops! Thanks
On Wednesday 01 August 2007 22:30, Reid Spencer wrote:
Author: reid
Date: Wed Aug 1 22:30:26 2007
New Revision: 40714
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=40714view=rev
Log:
Adjust for new CallInst constructor interface.
This fixes test/Feature/llvm2cpp.ll
Thanks, Reid.
On Thursday 02 August 2007 18:15, Chandler Carruth wrote:
.../include/llvm/Instructions.h: In member function 'void
llvm::CallInst::init(llvm::Value*, InputIterator, InputIterator, const
std::string, std::random_access_iterator_tag) [with InputIterator =
llvm::Use*]':
On Tuesday 10 July 2007 19:46, Owen Anderson wrote:
Author: resistor
Date: Tue Jul 10 19:46:18 2007
New Revision: 38517
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=38517view=rev
Log:
Add FastDSE, a new algorithm for doing dead store elimination. This
algorithm is not as accurate as the
On Monday 09 July 2007 13:04, Chris Lattner wrote:
I applied it:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-
Mon-20070709/051660.html
Danke.
I think that llvm-config --cppflags should include -
D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS. What do you think?
Yes, if that's what it's compiled with
I posted this patch a while back but nothing happened with it. llvm users who
configure with --enable-expensive-checks are currently unable to build
llvm-gcc without this patch. autoconf must be re-run after applying it.
Who is resposible for applying patches to llvm-gcc?
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 11:23, Chris Lattner wrote:
+ // fold (or x, undef) - -1
+ if (N1.getOpcode() == ISD::UNDEF)
+return DAG.getConstant(-1, VT);
Is this the right way to get an all-bits-one value?
Yes, but this has the same problem with vectors. :)
I don't understand the
On Tuesday 03 July 2007 12:16, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
Author: asl
Date: Tue Jul 3 12:16:46 2007
New Revision: 37854
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=37854view=rev
Log:
Revert last change until issue reported by Owen, won't be fixed.
- test-suite)
On Monday 02 July 2007 11:23, Dan Gohman wrote:
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=37845view=rev
Log:
Add a basic test-case for passing and returning 4 x double and
8 x float values on X86.
Hey Dan, what's the goal of all of this?
-Dave
On Monday 02 July 2007 22:04, David A. Greene wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 11:23, Dan Gohman wrote:
URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=37845view=rev
Log:
Add a basic test-case for passing and returning 4 x double and
8 x float values on X86.
Hey Dan, what's the goal of all
On Friday 29 June 2007 14:04, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
Hello, Everyone.
I'm getting these warnings on trunk:
src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp: In member function
`bool unnamed::bu_ls_rr_sort::operator()(const llvm::SUnit*, const
llvm::SUnit*) const':
On Friday 29 June 2007 14:04, Anton Korobeynikov wrote:
Hello, Everyone.
I'm getting these warnings on trunk:
src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp: In member function
`bool unnamed::bu_ls_rr_sort::operator()(const llvm::SUnit*, const
llvm::SUnit*) const':
Wow, sorry about the huge patch I just posted.
Here's a version without the patches to the two configure scripts.
Whoever applies it will have to re-run autoconf.
-Dave
Index: gcc/Makefile.in
On Thursday 28 June 2007 20:14, Reid Spencer wrote:
Index: llvm/configure
Please don't commit generated files with non-generated files.
Oops, sorry about that.
+# If DISABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=1 is specified (make command line or
configured), +# then disable expensive checks by defining
On Thursday 28 June 2007 22:32, David A. Greene wrote:
You're introducing CPP.Defines but I don't see it used in this file. Is
this for future use?
Ah, I think that's an artifact of something I was going to do for
llvm-config but decided against. I'll clean it up.
Scratch
On Thursday 28 June 2007 21:51, Nick Lewycky wrote:
David Greene wrote:
+// Cray [dag]: Must recompute end() each iteration because it may
Please don't mark the comments as being from Cray. Just write the
comment as a standard explanation.
Ok, will fix. Just wanted to take
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Evan Cheng wrote:
Hi,
The patch seems pretty safe to me. The only thing I am not sure about is:
[snip]
It's not clear to me if this is the right way to model this pass. After
all, this is not an analysis pass. Perhaps the right thing to do is
18 matches
Mail list logo
