search for: 87147d95

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: >> Seems reasonable, but I haven't looked at the code yet. I would >> suggest trying to split your work up into separate patches which >> implement incremental pieces of functionality, then submitting them to >> llvm-commits for review. That is much easier for us to deal with

...not four. > > I think it looks fine otherwise. > > -Eli > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mc_jit_01.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 4411 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100721/87147d95/attachment.bin>

> In the context of the JIT, there really is no such thing as a > relocation, just fixups. I'm not completely sure what the right > approach is, but the JIT should be able to fully resolve all of the > symbols that are being used in the module. We may need some extra > interfaces to allow the JIT to tell the MCAssembler about the address > of some external symbols though.