1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
|
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<title>LLVM: Frequently Asked Questions</title>
<style type="text/css">
@import url("llvm.css");
.question { font-weight: bold }
.answer { margin-left: 2em }
</style>
</head>
<body>
<h1>
LLVM: Frequently Asked Questions
</h1>
<ol>
<li><a href="#license">License</a>
<ol>
<li>Does the University of Illinois Open Source License really qualify as an
"open source" license?</li>
<li>Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute the modified source?</li>
<li>Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute binaries or other tools
based on it, without redistributing the source?</li>
</ol></li>
<li><a href="#source">Source code</a>
<ol>
<li>In what language is LLVM written?</li>
<li>How portable is the LLVM source code?</li>
</ol></li>
<li><a href="#build">Build Problems</a>
<ol>
<li>When I run configure, it finds the wrong C compiler.</li>
<li>The <tt>configure</tt> script finds the right C compiler, but it uses
the LLVM linker from a previous build. What do I do?</li>
<li>When creating a dynamic library, I get a strange GLIBC error.</li>
<li>I've updated my source tree from Subversion, and now my build is trying
to use a file/directory that doesn't exist.</li>
<li>I've modified a Makefile in my source tree, but my build tree keeps
using the old version. What do I do?</li>
<li>I've upgraded to a new version of LLVM, and I get strange build
errors.</li>
<li>I've built LLVM and am testing it, but the tests freeze.</li>
<li>Why do test results differ when I perform different types of
builds?</li>
<li>Compiling LLVM with GCC 3.3.2 fails, what should I do?</li>
<li>Compiling LLVM with GCC succeeds, but the resulting tools do not work,
what can be wrong?</li>
<li>When I use the test suite, all of the C Backend tests fail. What is
wrong?</li>
<li>After Subversion update, rebuilding gives the error "No rule to make
target".</li>
</ol></li>
<li><a href="#felangs">Source Languages</a>
<ol>
<li><a href="#langs">What source languages are supported?</a></li>
<li><a href="#langirgen">I'd like to write a self-hosting LLVM compiler. How
should I interface with the LLVM middle-end optimizers and back-end code
generators?</a></li>
<li><a href="#langhlsupp">What support is there for higher level source
language constructs for building a compiler?</a></li>
<li><a href="GetElementPtr.html">I don't understand the GetElementPtr
instruction. Help!</a></li>
</ol>
<li><a href="#cfe">Using the C and C++ Front Ends</a>
<ol>
<li><a href="#platformindependent">Can I compile C or C++ code to
platform-independent LLVM bitcode?</a></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><a href="#cfe_code">Questions about code generated by the demo page</a>
<ol>
<li><a href="#iosinit">What is this <tt>llvm.global_ctors</tt> and
<tt>_GLOBAL__I_a...</tt> stuff that happens when I
#include <iostream>?</a></li>
<li><a href="#codedce">Where did all of my code go??</a></li>
<li><a href="#undef">What is this "<tt>undef</tt>" thing that shows up in
my code?</a></li>
<li><a href="#callconvwrong">Why does instcombine + simplifycfg turn
a call to a function with a mismatched calling convention into "unreachable"?
Why not make the verifier reject it?</a></li>
</ol>
</li>
</ol>
<div class="doc_author">
<p>Written by <a href="http://llvm.org/">The LLVM Team</a></p>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="license">License</a>
</h2>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div>
<div class="question">
<p>Does the University of Illinois Open Source License really qualify as an
"open source" license?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Yes, the license
is <a href="http://www.opensource.org/licenses/UoI-NCSA.php">certified</a> by
the Open Source Initiative (OSI).</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute the modified source?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Yes. The modified source distribution must retain the copyright notice and
follow the three bulletted conditions listed in
the <a href="http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/LICENSE.TXT">LLVM
license</a>.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>Can I modify LLVM source code and redistribute binaries or other tools based
on it, without redistributing the source?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Yes. This is why we distribute LLVM under a less restrictive license than
GPL, as explained in the first question above.</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="source">Source Code</a>
</h2>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div>
<div class="question">
<p>In what language is LLVM written?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>All of the LLVM tools and libraries are written in C++ with extensive use of
the STL.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>How portable is the LLVM source code?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>The LLVM source code should be portable to most modern UNIX-like operating
systems. Most of the code is written in standard C++ with operating system
services abstracted to a support library. The tools required to build and test
LLVM have been ported to a plethora of platforms.</p>
<p>Some porting problems may exist in the following areas:</p>
<ul>
<li>The autoconf/makefile build system relies heavily on UNIX shell tools,
like the Bourne Shell and sed. Porting to systems without these tools
(MacOS 9, Plan 9) Will require more effort.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="build">Build Problems</a>
</h2>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<div>
<div class="question">
<p>When I run configure, it finds the wrong C compiler.</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>The <tt>configure</tt> script attempts to locate first <tt>gcc</tt> and then
<tt>cc</tt>, unless it finds compiler paths set in <tt>CC</tt>
and <tt>CXX</tt> for the C and C++ compiler, respectively.</p>
<p>If <tt>configure</tt> finds the wrong compiler, either adjust your
<tt>PATH</tt> environment variable or set <tt>CC</tt> and <tt>CXX</tt>
explicitly.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>The <tt>configure</tt> script finds the right C compiler, but it uses the
LLVM tools from a previous build. What do I do?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>The <tt>configure</tt> script uses the <tt>PATH</tt> to find executables, so
if it's grabbing the wrong linker/assembler/etc, there are two ways to fix
it:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Adjust your <tt>PATH</tt> environment variable so that the correct
program appears first in the <tt>PATH</tt>. This may work, but may not be
convenient when you want them <i>first</i> in your path for other
work.</p></li>
<li><p>Run <tt>configure</tt> with an alternative <tt>PATH</tt> that is
correct. In a Borne compatible shell, the syntax would be:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
% PATH=[the path without the bad program] ./configure ...
</pre>
<p>This is still somewhat inconvenient, but it allows <tt>configure</tt>
to do its work without having to adjust your <tt>PATH</tt>
permanently.</p></li>
</ol>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>When creating a dynamic library, I get a strange GLIBC error.</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Under some operating systems (i.e. Linux), libtool does not work correctly if
GCC was compiled with the --disable-shared option. To work around this,
install your own version of GCC that has shared libraries enabled by
default.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>I've updated my source tree from Subversion, and now my build is trying to
use a file/directory that doesn't exist.</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>You need to re-run configure in your object directory. When new Makefiles
are added to the source tree, they have to be copied over to the object tree
in order to be used by the build.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>I've modified a Makefile in my source tree, but my build tree keeps using the
old version. What do I do?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>If the Makefile already exists in your object tree, you can just run the
following command in the top level directory of your object tree:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
% ./config.status <relative path to Makefile>
</pre>
<p>If the Makefile is new, you will have to modify the configure script to copy
it over.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>I've upgraded to a new version of LLVM, and I get strange build errors.</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Sometimes, changes to the LLVM source code alters how the build system works.
Changes in libtool, autoconf, or header file dependencies are especially
prone to this sort of problem.</p>
<p>The best thing to try is to remove the old files and re-build. In most
cases, this takes care of the problem. To do this, just type <tt>make
clean</tt> and then <tt>make</tt> in the directory that fails to build.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>I've built LLVM and am testing it, but the tests freeze.</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>This is most likely occurring because you built a profile or release
(optimized) build of LLVM and have not specified the same information on the
<tt>gmake</tt> command line.</p>
<p>For example, if you built LLVM with the command:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
% gmake ENABLE_PROFILING=1
</pre>
<p>...then you must run the tests with the following commands:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
% cd llvm/test
% gmake ENABLE_PROFILING=1
</pre>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>Why do test results differ when I perform different types of builds?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>The LLVM test suite is dependent upon several features of the LLVM tools and
libraries.</p>
<p>First, the debugging assertions in code are not enabled in optimized or
profiling builds. Hence, tests that used to fail may pass.</p>
<p>Second, some tests may rely upon debugging options or behavior that is only
available in the debug build. These tests will fail in an optimized or
profile build.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>Compiling LLVM with GCC 3.3.2 fails, what should I do?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>This is <a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=13392">a bug in
GCC</a>, and affects projects other than LLVM. Try upgrading or downgrading
your GCC.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>Compiling LLVM with GCC succeeds, but the resulting tools do not work, what
can be wrong?</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Several versions of GCC have shown a weakness in miscompiling the LLVM
codebase. Please consult your compiler version (<tt>gcc --version</tt>) to
find out whether it is <a href="GettingStarted.html#brokengcc">broken</a>.
If so, your only option is to upgrade GCC to a known good version.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p>After Subversion update, rebuilding gives the error "No rule to make
target".</p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>If the error is of the form:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
gmake[2]: *** No rule to make target `/path/to/somefile', needed by
`/path/to/another/file.d'.<br>
Stop.
</pre>
<p>This may occur anytime files are moved within the Subversion repository or
removed entirely. In this case, the best solution is to erase all
<tt>.d</tt> files, which list dependencies for source files, and rebuild:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
% cd $LLVM_OBJ_DIR
% rm -f `find . -name \*\.d`
% gmake
</pre>
<p>In other cases, it may be necessary to run <tt>make clean</tt> before
rebuilding.</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="felangs">Source Languages</a>
</h2>
<div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="langs">What source languages are supported?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>LLVM currently has full support for C and C++ source languages. These are
available through both <a href="http://clang.llvm.org/">Clang</a> and
<a href="http://dragonegg.llvm.org/">DragonEgg</a>.</p>
<p>The PyPy developers are working on integrating LLVM into the PyPy backend so
that PyPy language can translate to LLVM.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="langirgen">I'd like to write a self-hosting LLVM compiler. How
should I interface with the LLVM middle-end optimizers and back-end code
generators?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Your compiler front-end will communicate with LLVM by creating a module in
the LLVM intermediate representation (IR) format. Assuming you want to write
your language's compiler in the language itself (rather than C++), there are
3 major ways to tackle generating LLVM IR from a front-end:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Call into the LLVM libraries code using your language's FFI
(foreign function interface).</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>for:</em> best tracks changes to the LLVM IR, .ll syntax, and .bc
format</li>
<li><em>for:</em> enables running LLVM optimization passes without a
emit/parse overhead</li>
<li><em>for:</em> adapts well to a JIT context</li>
<li><em>against:</em> lots of ugly glue code to write</li>
</ul></li>
<li> <strong>Emit LLVM assembly from your compiler's native language.</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>for:</em> very straightforward to get started</li>
<li><em>against:</em> the .ll parser is slower than the bitcode reader
when interfacing to the middle end</li>
<li><em>against:</em> you'll have to re-engineer the LLVM IR object model
and asm writer in your language</li>
<li><em>against:</em> it may be harder to track changes to the IR</li>
</ul></li>
<li><strong>Emit LLVM bitcode from your compiler's native language.</strong>
<ul>
<li><em>for:</em> can use the more-efficient bitcode reader when
interfacing to the middle end</li>
<li><em>against:</em> you'll have to re-engineer the LLVM IR object
model and bitcode writer in your language</li>
<li><em>against:</em> it may be harder to track changes to the IR</li>
</ul></li>
</ul>
<p>If you go with the first option, the C bindings in include/llvm-c should help
a lot, since most languages have strong support for interfacing with C. The
most common hurdle with calling C from managed code is interfacing with the
garbage collector. The C interface was designed to require very little memory
management, and so is straightforward in this regard.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="langhlsupp">What support is there for a higher level source language
constructs for building a compiler?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>Currently, there isn't much. LLVM supports an intermediate representation
which is useful for code representation but will not support the high level
(abstract syntax tree) representation needed by most compilers. There are no
facilities for lexical nor semantic analysis.</p>
</div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="getelementptr">I don't understand the GetElementPtr
instruction. Help!</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>See <a href="GetElementPtr.html">The Often Misunderstood GEP
Instruction</a>.</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="cfe">Using the C and C++ Front Ends</a>
</h2>
<div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="platformindependent">Can I compile C or C++ code to
platform-independent LLVM bitcode?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>No. C and C++ are inherently platform-dependent languages. The most obvious
example of this is the preprocessor. A very common way that C code is made
portable is by using the preprocessor to include platform-specific code. In
practice, information about other platforms is lost after preprocessing, so
the result is inherently dependent on the platform that the preprocessing was
targeting.</p>
<p>Another example is <tt>sizeof</tt>. It's common for <tt>sizeof(long)</tt> to
vary between platforms. In most C front-ends, <tt>sizeof</tt> is expanded to
a constant immediately, thus hard-wiring a platform-specific detail.</p>
<p>Also, since many platforms define their ABIs in terms of C, and since LLVM is
lower-level than C, front-ends currently must emit platform-specific IR in
order to have the result conform to the platform ABI.</p>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<h2>
<a name="cfe_code">Questions about code generated by the demo page</a>
</h2>
<div>
<div class="question">
<p><a name="iosinit">What is this <tt>llvm.global_ctors</tt> and
<tt>_GLOBAL__I_a...</tt> stuff that happens when I <tt>#include
<iostream></tt>?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>If you <tt>#include</tt> the <tt><iostream></tt> header into a C++
translation unit, the file will probably use
the <tt>std::cin</tt>/<tt>std::cout</tt>/... global objects. However, C++
does not guarantee an order of initialization between static objects in
different translation units, so if a static ctor/dtor in your .cpp file
used <tt>std::cout</tt>, for example, the object would not necessarily be
automatically initialized before your use.</p>
<p>To make <tt>std::cout</tt> and friends work correctly in these scenarios, the
STL that we use declares a static object that gets created in every
translation unit that includes <tt><iostream></tt>. This object has a
static constructor and destructor that initializes and destroys the global
iostream objects before they could possibly be used in the file. The code
that you see in the .ll file corresponds to the constructor and destructor
registration code.
</p>
<p>If you would like to make it easier to <b>understand</b> the LLVM code
generated by the compiler in the demo page, consider using <tt>printf()</tt>
instead of <tt>iostream</tt>s to print values.</p>
</div>
<!--=========================================================================-->
<div class="question">
<p><a name="codedce">Where did all of my code go??</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>If you are using the LLVM demo page, you may often wonder what happened to
all of the code that you typed in. Remember that the demo script is running
the code through the LLVM optimizers, so if your code doesn't actually do
anything useful, it might all be deleted.</p>
<p>To prevent this, make sure that the code is actually needed. For example, if
you are computing some expression, return the value from the function instead
of leaving it in a local variable. If you really want to constrain the
optimizer, you can read from and assign to <tt>volatile</tt> global
variables.</p>
</div>
<!--=========================================================================-->
<div class="question">
<p><a name="undef">What is this "<tt>undef</tt>" thing that shows up in my
code?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p><a href="LangRef.html#undef"><tt>undef</tt></a> is the LLVM way of
representing a value that is not defined. You can get these if you do not
initialize a variable before you use it. For example, the C function:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
int X() { int i; return i; }
</pre>
<p>Is compiled to "<tt>ret i32 undef</tt>" because "<tt>i</tt>" never has a
value specified for it.</p>
</div>
<!--=========================================================================-->
<div class="question">
<p><a name="callconvwrong">Why does instcombine + simplifycfg turn
a call to a function with a mismatched calling convention into "unreachable"?
Why not make the verifier reject it?</a></p>
</div>
<div class="answer">
<p>This is a common problem run into by authors of front-ends that are using
custom calling conventions: you need to make sure to set the right calling
convention on both the function and on each call to the function. For example,
this code:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define void @bar() {
call void @foo()
ret void
}
</pre>
<p>Is optimized to:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define void @bar() {
unreachable
}
</pre>
<p>... with "opt -instcombine -simplifycfg". This often bites people because
"all their code disappears". Setting the calling convention on the caller and
callee is required for indirect calls to work, so people often ask why not make
the verifier reject this sort of thing.</p>
<p>The answer is that this code has undefined behavior, but it is not illegal.
If we made it illegal, then every transformation that could potentially create
this would have to ensure that it doesn't, and there is valid code that can
create this sort of construct (in dead code). The sorts of things that can
cause this to happen are fairly contrived, but we still need to accept them.
Here's an example:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define internal void @bar(void()* %FP, i1 %cond) {
br i1 %cond, label %T, label %F
T:
call void %FP()
ret void
F:
call fastcc void %FP()
ret void
}
define void @test() {
%X = or i1 false, false
call void @bar(void()* @foo, i1 %X)
ret void
}
</pre>
<p>In this example, "test" always passes @foo/false into bar, which ensures that
it is dynamically called with the right calling conv (thus, the code is
perfectly well defined). If you run this through the inliner, you get this
(the explicit "or" is there so that the inliner doesn't dead code eliminate
a bunch of stuff):
</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define void @test() {
%X = or i1 false, false
br i1 %X, label %T.i, label %F.i
T.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bar.exit
F.i:
call fastcc void @foo()
br label %bar.exit
bar.exit:
ret void
}
</pre>
<p>Here you can see that the inlining pass made an undefined call to @foo with
the wrong calling convention. We really don't want to make the inliner have
to know about this sort of thing, so it needs to be valid code. In this case,
dead code elimination can trivially remove the undefined code. However, if %X
was an input argument to @test, the inliner would produce this:
</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define void @test(i1 %X) {
br i1 %X, label %T.i, label %F.i
T.i:
call void @foo()
br label %bar.exit
F.i:
call fastcc void @foo()
br label %bar.exit
bar.exit:
ret void
}
</pre>
<p>The interesting thing about this is that %X <em>must</em> be false for the
code to be well-defined, but no amount of dead code elimination will be able to
delete the broken call as unreachable. However, since instcombine/simplifycfg
turns the undefined call into unreachable, we end up with a branch on a
condition that goes to unreachable: a branch to unreachable can never happen, so
"-inline -instcombine -simplifycfg" is able to produce:</p>
<pre class="doc_code">
define fastcc void @foo() {
ret void
}
define void @test(i1 %X) {
F.i:
call fastcc void @foo()
ret void
}
</pre>
</div>
</div>
<!-- *********************************************************************** -->
<hr>
<address>
<a href="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/check/referer"><img
src="http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/images/vcss-blue" alt="Valid CSS"></a>
<a href="http://validator.w3.org/check/referer"><img
src="http://www.w3.org/Icons/valid-html401-blue" alt="Valid HTML 4.01"></a>
<a href="http://llvm.org/">LLVM Compiler Infrastructure</a><br>
Last modified: $Date$
</address>
</body>
</html>
|
