search for: disassebling

I am writing a transformation that needs to add a call to a function F() at the beginning of main() with the addresses of argc and argv as parameters to F(). However, the bytecode file I'm transforming has not allocated space on the stack for argc and argv. So, I developed my transformation to change main() from: ----- int main(int %argc, sbyte** %argv){ entry: ... // some use of

Hello. I have compiled the simple program: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> int v1[10000]; int main() { int i; for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { v1[i] = i; } for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { printf("%d ", v1[i]); } return 0; } Next, I disasseble the executable file and have not found

Hello, Ryan. > It seems as though, when the bytecode is disassebled, the result of the > allocas should be given as a parameter to the stores. It's given. > If the disassembler doesn't give the allocas a name, then that dependency is > not conveyed. Both disassembly & bytecode is correct. Please carefully read LLVM Language reference about %"num" names. --

On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello. > I have compiled the simple program: > > #include <stdio.h> > #include <stdlib.h> > > int v1[10000]; > > int main() > { > int i; > > for (i = 0; i < 10000; i++) { > v1[i] = i; > } > > This loop

On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 07:48:45PM -0400, Sean Silva wrote: > I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; I think it should have > `llvm-c` or `c-api` somewhere in the name. This could also serve as a > simple example of using the API. I had it as llvm-c-test first, then noticed that the shared library's directory was named "llvm-shlib". Yes, making sure it serves as

...*(&ltmp_3355_85) = ltmp_75_3; *(&ltmp_3356_105) = ltmp_76_9; initLogging((&ltmp_3355_85), (&ltmp_3356_105), 1, 0); ----- The C code is what I intended. That leaves me to believe that my transformation produced the correct bytecode, but the dissassembler is not properly disassebling the bytecode. Ryan Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am writing a transformation that needs to add a call to a function F() > at the beginning of main() with the addresses of argc and argv as > parameters to F(). However, the bytecode file I'm transforming has not > allocated space...

> Why isn't llvm giving a name to the value returned by the allocas and > using it in the store instructions? Because you pass in an empty string for the name in the new AllocaInst calls below. Replace the empty strings with "argc_addr" or whatever you want. > AllocaInst* argc_alloca = new AllocaInst(argc->getType(), "", >

AKA, the Unified Kernel Project, out of China! This patches the linux kernel to provide windows kernel-level services in parallel to linux services and patches wine to use these rather than emulate them. Anyone used, had success with this? Worthwhile? Patching kernels, while not for all newbies, is fairly quick and hopefully painless, at least in Debian. Patching wine is a big job. Since any

I think having this would be awesome! On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 4:11 AM, Anders Waldenborg <anders at 0x63.nu> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 07:48:45PM -0400, Sean Silva wrote: >> I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; I think it should have >> `llvm-c` or `c-api` somewhere in the name. This could also serve as a >> simple example of using the API. > > I

I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; I think it should have `llvm-c` or `c-api` somewhere in the name. This could also serve as a simple example of using the API. -- Sean Silva On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Anders Waldenborg <anders at 0x63.nu> wrote: > Moving this to llvmdev. > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:26:41AM +0200, Anders Waldenborg wrote: > > >

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Serg Anohovsky <serg.anohovsky at gmail.com> Date: 2011/5/22 Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] No SSE instructions To: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> 2011/5/22 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > > On May 22, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > > On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM, Serg Anohovsky

Moving this to llvmdev. On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:26:41AM +0200, Anders Waldenborg wrote: > > > This avoids warnings when included in a application that > > > uses -Wstrict-prototypes. > > > > > > > Should we enable this warning in CFLAGS for LLVM builds to catch this > > sooner? > > It is a C-only warning, and AFAICS there is no C code in