search for: halivingston

...hanges? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Lakeman <Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com> wrote: > Assembly syntax can and will break between versions. But bitcode should > generally be upgradeable, or a bug should be filed. > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Is it safe to assume that LLVM IR will live more-or-less the same for >> most releases, and that significant changes will be communicated? >> >> Or is it something that can change at any time and you must not rely on >> it ever bei...

This is also happening when using the C++ APIs. It looks like an MCJIT and SetGC interaction. I'm lost on how to proceed further. On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > The erlang was a typo, I was trying things out. > > I've updated the bug with a C program, which exhibits the problem. > > To answer your question, given the IR you generated llc/opt does not > complain. > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 9:59 PM, Phi...

...'d be happy to add the bindings .. is there a general way we add them? Or do you just scrub the API and make sensible judgements to the API? On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new >> OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? >> >> Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major >> features are a...

...> > ; Function Attrs: nounwind ssp uwtable > > define i32 @test(i32 %val) #0 { > > %1 = load i32 (i32)** @f, align 8, !tbaa !1 > > %2 = tail call i32 %1(i32 %val) #1 > > ret i32 %2 > > } > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> I'm having a problem of being unable to call into an arbitrary function >> that is loaded into memory whose pointer address is known to me but was not >> linked into LLVM. >> >> I have added the function and called LLVMAddGloba...

...t instead infers them from the structure of the assembly itself, and requires that LLVM only generate function returns using a particular finite set of instructions), so that has to be handled elsewhere during machine code selection/emission. On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 11:07 AM Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > Julia is a language, and you can use their code. > > Jameson Nash, could you please let us know why Julia's code has hard > coded values for the unwinding? Is your prolog/epilog some standard > one? > > On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 2:47 AM, <bjoern....

...lets the register allocator spill it under high > register pressure. > > GCC has support for allocating globals in GPRs and removing that GPR from > the allocatable set, but LLVM doesn't implement it so far as I know. > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I was wondering if global variables can be candidates for register >> allocation. My use case is a global variable that is used in every >> function in my program. >> >> I'm wondering if it's better to pass it in, or let...

Hello, I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major features are added? Hayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150201/061f5949/attachment.html>

Can we also codify when something should be added to the C API? For a lot of folks the C API is the only usable interface. I am one of them. We are not as vocally represented because don't generally give back to the community, usually because we are just consumers of this library. (Or maybe I'm totally wrong and lots of us give back). For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings. On Fri, Jul

...sts.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> Message: 3 >> Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:49:50 -0700 >> From: Michael Lewis via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> To: Hayden Livingston > <halivingston at gmail.com<mailto:halivingston at gmail.com>> >> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> >> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of stack walking in LLVM on Win64? >> Message-ID: >> > <CAEm7p3svyOi6JU6r_RCCtRfG...

...to build the unwind information. (Perhaps this wouldn't be feasible in a static environment, but it's possible in a JIT environment, since this is indeed how it's done in JuliaLang). > > From: Jameson Nash <vtjnash at gmail.com> > To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com>, > bjoern.gaier at horiba.com > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, Stefan > Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> > Date: 16.10.2017 23:04 > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Clang/LLVM JIT - When to use > "...

...s no export annotations or export lists, so we don't support > building DLLs. If you are using mingw, then ld supports the > --export-all-symbols flag which might work, but I don't think it's well > tested. > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:33 AM, Hayden Livingston < > halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Upon reading http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html it says I can >> build shared libs, but when going to the CMake doc ( >> http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html) it says Shared libraries are not >> supported on Windows and not recommended for ot...

Thanks for the link! There’s some code there that looks extremely relevant to say the least. > On 1 Oct 2015, at 19:00, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe looking at their code might help: > > https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/blob/dd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a922/lib/Jit/LLILCJit.cpp#L299 > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org&gt...

> Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2016 17:49:50 -0700 > From: Michael Lewis via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Status of stack walking in LLVM on Win64? > Message-ID: > <CAEm7p3svyOi6JU6r_RCCtRfGhTgTHeRw-SR0iD+9Edv2pi71Dw at mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" &...

I'm having a problem of being unable to call into an arbitrary function that is loaded into memory whose pointer address is known to me but was not linked into LLVM. I have added the function and called LLVMAddGlobalMapping with the pointer, and the program segfaults. I was wondering if it is a supported scenario that LLVM can generate a call into an arbitrary function that is not linked.

I was wondering if global variables can be candidates for register allocation. My use case is a global variable that is used in every function in my program. I'm wondering if it's better to pass it in, or let it stay as a global. Passing it in will require a bit of work.

Can we accept the patch which makes this work? There is a patch in the bug report for the MCJIT case. I'm confused why AOT and MCJIT case would be different but without it the information isn't registered. On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If you want an AOT linker and you don't want to use link.exe, you can use

I will build LLVM locally, debug and report back. On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > I've just started using the llvm-pdbutil tool. Great job on the general tool. > > But I'm having trouble figuring out how the output of the dump tool > relates to real addresses in memory or for that matter relative > virtual address either. > &gt...

I'm trying to add gcoot functionality to my code and I'm confused by why gcroot is assuming to be an i8** I'm using i32 as object and array pointers and if I make them i8 things seem to work. I'm generating IR much like http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html#llvm-ir-features void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %ptrloc, i8* %metadata) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

...gt;>> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of >> Joshua Gerrard via llvm-dev >> >>> Sent: Friday, October 2, 2015 1:18 AM >> >>> To: Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> >> >>> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> >>> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] Orc Windows C++ >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for the link! >> >>> There’s some code there that looks extremely relevant...

> On 2015 Apr 29, at 19:13, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is missing in the current textual format that doesn't allow going > all the way to machine code? Nothing. What's missing is the ability to serialize the machine level itself. Since many passes have to run to get from .ll to .s, it's currently...