Displaying 9 results from an estimated 9 matches for "constantvalues".
Did you mean:
constantvalue
2008 Jul 11
1
[LLVMdev] Cloning Functions
...wo value maps I
get a faullt mapping a ConstantValue from one of the pristine Function
clones. Apparently this ConstantValue got deleted by optimization
somewhere.
This actually doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What happens if I
clone a function and optimize it or the original function and ConstantValues
start getting deleted? That ConstantValue could still be referenced by
the unoptimized version of the function. I would think this situation would
be rather common.
Is it because the pristine Function clones live outside a Module that I'm
having this issue?
This seems much harder than it sh...
2008 Jul 11
0
[LLVMdev] Cloning Functions
On Friday 11 July 2008 12:05, Devang Patel wrote:
> > Ok, I've mostly got a mechanism to do what I want:
> >
> > 1. As each function comes in for op/codegen, clone it and save off
> > the clone and its associated ValueMap (I call these clones
> > "pristine"
> > functions.
> >
> > 2. After all processing is done, clone the resulting
2008 Jul 11
2
[LLVMdev] Cloning Functions
On Jul 11, 2008, at 9:59 AM, David Greene wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 July 2008 13:49, David Greene wrote:
>
>>> then it seems you're doing
>>>
>>> for each function
>>> generate_ir
>>> convert_to_llvm_ir
>>> optimize_llvm_ir
>>
>> Yep.
>
> Ok, I've mostly got a mechanism to do what I want:
>
> 1. As
2013 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] modifiy the address of GlobalVariable emitted by JIT
Hi everyone,
I am building a binary translator, and try to do block chaining.
LLVM version : 3.1
my machine : x86-32 bit, Linux
Before each *LLVM IR returnInst constantValue*, I insert a call instruction
& a returnInst which looks like
%x = call @G ;
ret %x;
then remove the *LLVM IR returnInst constantValue*
The initializer of @G is a function which has prototype int f(struct MyType*
2010 Feb 27
3
[LLVMdev] Object layout bug for C++ derived class with long long integer
I have a simple C++ class that looks like this:
struct Foo { Thing *first; Blob *second; unsigned long third; };
Then I have a derived C++ class that look like this:
struct Bar : Foo { long long fourth; }
I generate JIT code to access 'fourth' from a Foo * as follows:
BarPtr = CreateBitCast(FooPtr, BarPtrTy);
FourthPtr = CreateConstGEP2_32(BarPtr, 0, 3);
FourthValue =
2009 Jul 23
2
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jul 2, 2009, at 10:48 AM, robert muth wrote:
>
> I spend over a day trying to follow your suggestion. In the end I was not
> successful. Here is what Iearned:
>
> After setting
>
> ARMJITInfo::hasCustomJumpTables -> true
> setOperationAction for ISD::BR_JT -> Expand
>
2009 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Jul 23, 2009, at 12:10 PM, robert muth wrote:
> Bob:
>
> Thanks for cleaning this up. I like the new patch much better than
> the old one.
> Teaching the (abstract) ConstantValue class about jumptable indices
> is a little
> bit ugly but I do not see any better solution without massive
> refactoring.
> I have added TODOs here and elsewhere and plan to address
2009 Jul 14
0
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Jul 2, 2009, at 10:48 AM, robert muth wrote:
> I spend over a day trying to follow your suggestion. In the end I
> was not successful. Here is what Iearned:
>
> After setting
>
> ARMJITInfo::hasCustomJumpTables -> true
> setOperationAction for ISD::BR_JT -> Expand
>
> I needed to add a "brind" definition to ARMInstrInfo.td
> I picked
2009 Jul 02
2
[LLVMdev] patch for llc/ARM: added mechanism to move switch tables from .text -> .data; also cleanup and documentation
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi Robert,
> Evan asked me to review this patch, and I have some questions about it. I
> apologize for not following the discussion earlier and for hitting you with
> questions after you've already gone through several revisions.
>
> LLVM provides some default behavior for handling jump