search for: glguida

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Gianluca Guida wrote: >> Attached patch makes runJITOnFunction more reliable. > > When would MCI be null? Everytime you call recompileAndRelinkFunction. It calls runJITOnFunction without specifying the MCI argument, which get defaulted to NULL. Gianluca -- It was a

Please add a test to http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/unittests/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITTest.cpp?view=markup verifying that recompileAndRelinkFunction() keeps working. Then this fix will look fine to me. On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Gianluca Guida <glguida at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:14 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> On Dec 19, 2009, at 3:36 PM, Gianluca Guida wrote: >>> Attached patch makes runJITOnFunction more reliable. >> >> When would MCI be null? > > Everytim...

On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at google.com> wrote: > Please add a test to > http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/unittests/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITTest.cpp?view=markup > verifying that recompileAndRelinkFunction() keeps working. Then this > fix will look fine to me. Here it is. Unfortunately I'm not exactly a C++ guy so I'm open to

Dear All: I am pretty new to xen-devel, please correct me in the following. Assume we have the following terms GPT: guest page table SPT: shadow page table (Question a) When guest OS is running, is it always using SPT for address translation? If it is the case, how does guest OS refer and modify its own GPT content? It seems that there is a page table entry in SPT for the GPT page. (Question

Hello, JIT::recompileAndRelinkFunction's runJITOnFunction does not use the MCI arg, causing null pointer deferences at every call. Attached patch makes runJITOnFunction more reliable. Thanks, Gianluca -- It was a type of people I did not know, I found them very strange and they did not inspire confidence at all. Later I learned that I had been introduced to electronic engineers.

Hello, This patch implements cross-block dead store elimination for a simple scenario -- which was somehow important in my case --, i.e. when a store has only one memory dependence in a function. This patch is a bit narrow-minded (e..g, only store instructions are checked for memory dependencies), but I can always make it more generic, if you give me pointers *and* my code is correct. Cheers,