search for: freik

Hi, According to http://blogs.msdn.com/b/freik/archive/2006/03/07/x64-hotpatchability.aspx, 'hotpatchable' functions on x86 (and by extension, x86-64) are preceded by six bytes of padding and start with a two byte instruction. The problem is that, still being relatively unfamiliar with the x86 backend, I have no idea how to implement th...

On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > Hi, > > According to > http://blogs.msdn.com/b/freik/archive/2006/03/07/x64-hotpatchability.aspx, > 'hotpatchable' functions on x86 (and by extension, x86-64) are preceded > by six bytes of padding and start with a two byte instruction. The > problem is that, still being relatively unfamiliar with the x86 backend, > I have no idea...

I have a rewrite of the aggressive dead code elimination pass which handles control flow and allows may-be-infinite loops to be removed under optional flag. Chandler suggested rather than a large change a series of small changes and, while that may not get us to small changes easily, there has been no further commentary on the diff: https://reviews.llvm.org/D18762. Given that, I will plan on

You actually can mix 32 and 64 bit code in the same Windows process, but only with great effort. Fixing PR24233 is probably easier. :) We know how to generate the info, but we still have to get it registered... On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Lang Hames via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Dibyendu, > > I'm not familiar with Windows at all, but I assume you