search for: anarg

...al to the JIT. It would not support nearly as much functionality as the JIT (though it would have similar code). Here is a very loose use case - does this seem reasonable? **** #include modulecompiler #include module_loader char * countdown_function = "int %countdown (int %AnArg) {\n" " %result = call fastcc int %foo-int (int %AnArg) \n" " ret int %result\n" "}\n" "fastcc int %foo-int (int %AnArg) {\n" "EntryBlock:\n" " %cond = setle int %AnArg, 2\n" " br bool %cond, label %...

...re is a sketch of what the fib example would look like: #include "llvm_c.h" /* Everything takes and recieves void * pointers. This to avoid redefining C++ types. This is the C 'version' of the Fib example, at least in spirit. */ char* fib_function = "int %fib (int %AnArg) {" " EntryBlock: " " %cond = setle int AnArg, 2" " branch bool %cond, label return, label recur" " return:" " ret int 1" " recur:" " %sub1 = sub int %AnArg, 1" " %fibx1 = call tail int %fib (int %sub1) &quot...

...t; about that too. It's not just linking. You are right... BTW, I've just fixed that problem in my checkout and, among others terrible hacks, here I am: :\home\arathorn\sandbox\llvm>HowToUseJIT.exe We just constructed this LLVM module: implementation ; Functions: int %add1(int %AnArg) { EntryBlock: %addresult = add int 1, %AnArg ; <int> [#uses=1] ret int %addresult } int %foo() { EntryBlock: %add1 = call int %add1( int 10 ) ; <int> [#uses=1] ret int %add1 } Running foo: Result: 11 D:\home\arathorn\sand...

...ee that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and executable runs for 7.5sec. Why there is such difference? Yuri -------- fib.ll -------- ; ModuleID = 'all.bc' @.str = private constant [12 x i8] c"fib(%i)=%i\0A\00", align 1 ; <[12 x i8]*> [#uses=1] define i32 @fib(i32 %AnArg) { EntryBlock: %cond = icmp sle i32 %AnArg, 2 ; <i1> [#uses=1] br i1 %cond, label %return, label %recurse return: ; preds = %EntryBlock ret i32 1 recurse: ; preds = %EntryBlock %arg = sub...

Alexander, Yes, a patch like that would be accepted. Fewer dependencies = good :) Some notes on doing this: (1) Please make sure you use the std c++ iostream libraries for doing I/O. No native calls (we end up with portability problems). If you need something that must be ported, please add it to lib/System (2) You should also use the sys::Path class (include/llvm/System/Path.h) for handling

...ms that create LLVM IR on the fly and JIT compile it. I'm trying to take assembly and create machine code I can execute. How close am I ? Simon. int main() { Module *M = NULL; char *AsmString = "; ModuleID = 'test'\n\ \n\ implementation ; Functions:\n\ \n\ int %add1(int %AnArg) {\n\ EntryBlock:\n\ %addresult = add int 1, %AnArg ; <int> [#uses=1]\n\ ret int %addresult\n\ }\n\ "; M = ParseAssemblyString(AsmString, NULL); ExistingModuleProvider* MP = new ExistingModuleProvider(M); ExecutionEngine* EE = ExecutionEngine::create(MP,...

On May 16, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 16 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: > > Would it be possible (ie, relatively straitforward) to do the > > following: Take the code in module A, compile it with the JIT (since > > we cannot make libraries in Windows), and save the resulting binary > > goo in some file. Later (in a different instance of the runtime), with >

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: >>> Does there happen to be a C interface to the jit ? Our scheme impl >>> has a good FFI, but it doesn't do C++. If not, this is no big deal, >>> and i'll just write something myself. >> >> No, but such bindings would be *very useful*. And since there might be >> other people who need them this

...gt; #include "llvm_c.h" > > /* > Everything takes and recieves void * pointers. This to avoid redefining C++ > types. Makes sense. > This is the C 'version' of the Fib example, at least in spirit. > */ > > char* fib_function = > "int %fib (int %AnArg) {" > > " EntryBlock: " > " %cond = setle int AnArg, 2" > " branch bool %cond, label return, label recur" > > " return:" > " ret int 1" > > " recur:" > " %sub1 = sub int %AnArg, 1" > " %...

...right... > > BTW, I've just fixed that problem in my checkout and, among others > terrible hacks, here I am: > > :\home\arathorn\sandbox\llvm>HowToUseJIT.exe > We just constructed this LLVM module: > > > implementation ; Functions: > > int %add1(int %AnArg) { > EntryBlock: > %addresult = add int 1, %AnArg ; <int> [#uses=1] > ret int %addresult > } > > int %foo() { > EntryBlock: > %add1 = call int %add1( int 10 ) ; <int> > [#uses=1] > ret int %add1...

...at's even better as its a completely separate thing. > > Here is a very loose use case - does this seem reasonable? > > **** > > #include modulecompiler > > #include module_loader > > char * countdown_function = > "int %countdown (int %AnArg) {\n" > " %result = call fastcc int %foo-int (int %AnArg) \n" > " ret int %result\n" > "}\n" > "fastcc int %foo-int (int %AnArg) {\n" > "EntryBlock:\n" > " %cond = setle int %AnArg, 2\n" >...

...ven knew it was there to be checked in, as it's a hidden file. This file had hard-coded paths to Morten's setup, and even had his breakpoints in it. So... once these problems are fixed, I run fibonacci and get the following output: --------- implementation ; Functions: int %fib(int %AnArg) { EntryBlock: %cond = setle int %AnArg, 2 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %cond, label %return, label %recurse return: ; preds = %EntryBlock ret int 1 recurse: ; preds = %EntryBlock %arg = sub int %AnArg, 1 ; <...

> So as it stands, one should think of out JIT as something akin to the > early Java JITs: one function at a time and only one compile per > function. This is extremely primative by modern JIT standards, where a > JIT will do profiling, find hot functions and reoptimize them, > reoptimize functions when more information about the call tree is > available, have several levels of

...ll doesn't have any degree of inlining despite the flag -O3. Why clang with the flag -O3 inlines code and opt with the same -O3 doesn't? How can I make opt inline my .ll code the same way? Yuri --- fiobonacci fib.c example --- #include<stdlib.h> #include<stdio.h> int fib(int AnArg) { if (AnArg<= 2) return (1); return (fib(AnArg-1)+fib(AnArg-2)); } int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { int n = atoi(argv[1]); printf("fib(%i)=%i\n", n, fib(n)); } --- my handcrafted fib.ll --- define i32 @fib(i32) nounwind readnone { fib.top: %xcmp1 = icmp ugt i32 %0, 1...

Like I said, it is in my path. That's not enough. I'd be happy if Morten chimed in with any suggestions as to how he got it to work. On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 18:45:18 -0800 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Two suggestions: > > 1. m4 might be located by your PATH variable. > 2. Talk to Morten Ofstad about how he got it to work. > > Reid. > > On

Fantastic! It's working! Thank you so much Craig!!! On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:05 PM, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > It should be VectorType::get(Type::getInt32Ty(Context),4). You need the > word "get" after VectorType:: > > ~Craig > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 6:01 PM, Michael Choi <choimichael103 at gmail.com> > wrote: >

..."x86_64-apple-darwin"...Reading symbols for shared libraries .... done (gdb) r Starting program: /Users/lrz/src/llvm-26/Release/examples/HowToUseJIT Reading symbols for shared libraries +++. done We just constructed this LLVM module: ; ModuleID = 'test' define i32 @add1(i32 %AnArg) { EntryBlock: %addresult = add i32 1, %AnArg ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %addresult } define i32 @foo() { EntryBlock: %add1 = tail call i32 @add1(i32 10) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %add1 } Running foo: Program received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Cou...

MSVC++ is picky about this. It considers classes and structs to be different types so you have to be consistent. If you forward declared a struct as a class within the same compilation unit, it would complain about that too. It's not just linking. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:59:42 +0200 Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote: > Hi all, > > Finally I managed to find

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > > Is it possible to get llvm to generate native machine code > without using gcc and friends ? Do I use lli ? LLVM only needs llvm-gcc to translate from C/C++ to LLVM IR. If you already have code in LLVM IR form (e.g. because you're generating it on the fly or you have your own front-end) you don't need llvm-gcc. > I'd like to

Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > I'm trying to take assembly and create machine code I can execute. > How close am I ? Your test case is not complete. Besides, which version of llvm are you using? What are the commands for compiling and linking your test case? How it bombs? Do you #include "llvm/ExecutionEngine/JIT.h" ? -- Oscar