Displaying 10 results from an estimated 10 matches for "inputargv".
Did you mean:
inputarg
2008 Nov 02
2
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
...s that when bugpoint is run with
--run-jit, the linker args are not passed to gcc (from
tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp) :
if (InterpreterSel == RunLLC || InterpreterSel == RunCBE ||
InterpreterSel == CBE_bug || InterpreterSel == LLC_Safe)
RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
OutputFile, AdditionalLinkerArgs,
SharedObjs,
Timeout, MemoryLimit);
else
RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
OutputFile, std::vector<std::string>...
2008 Nov 04
4
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
...> --run-jit, the linker args are not passed to gcc (from
> tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp) :
>
> if (InterpreterSel == RunLLC || InterpreterSel == RunCBE ||
> InterpreterSel == CBE_bug || InterpreterSel == LLC_Safe)
>
> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
> OutputFile, AdditionalLinkerArgs,
> SharedObjs,
> Timeout, MemoryLimit);
>
> else
>
>
> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
>...
2003 May 23
0
[LLVMdev] lli should not put .bc in argv[0]
...ams (and users) might not expect to
+ // see it.
+ const std::string ByteCodeFileSuffix (".bc");
+ if (InputFile.rfind (ByteCodeFileSuffix) ==
+ InputFile.length () - ByteCodeFileSuffix.length ()) {
+ InputFile.erase (InputFile.length () - ByteCodeFileSuffix.length ());
+ }
InputArgv.insert(InputArgv.begin(), InputFile);
// Run the main function!
2008 Nov 03
0
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
...th --run-jit, the linker args are not passed to gcc (from tools/
> bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp) :
>
> if (InterpreterSel == RunLLC || InterpreterSel == RunCBE ||
> InterpreterSel == CBE_bug || InterpreterSel == LLC_Safe)
>
> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
> OutputFile, AdditionalLinkerArgs,
> SharedObjs,
> Timeout, MemoryLimit);
>
> else
>
>
> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
>...
2005 Jan 08
0
[LLVMdev] Primer with LLVM
...(7) Execute it
llvm/tools/lli/lli.cpp ->
Function *Fn = MP->getModule()->getMainFunction();
if (!Fn) {
std::cerr << "'main' function not found in module.\n";
return -1;
}
// Run main...
int Result = EE->runFunctionAsMain(Fn, InputArgv, envp);
See
llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/ExecutionEngine.cpp for runFunctionAsMain()
--
Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
2008 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
...args are not passed to gcc (from
>> tools/bugpoint/ExecutionDriver.cpp) :
>>
>> if (InterpreterSel == RunLLC || InterpreterSel == RunCBE ||
>> InterpreterSel == CBE_bug || InterpreterSel == LLC_Safe)
>>
>> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
>> OutputFile, AdditionalLinkerArgs,
>> SharedObjs,
>> Timeout, MemoryLimit);
>>
>> else
>>
>>
>> RetVal = AI->ExecuteProgram(BitcodeFile, InputArgv, InputFile,
>...
2008 Oct 28
0
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Prakash Prabhu
<prakash.prabhu at gmail.com> wrote:
> Generating reference output from raw program: <cbe><gcc>
> Error running tool:
[snip]
> /tmp/cc08IpX8.o: In function `SyLoadModule':
> bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:(.text+0x25705): undefined reference to
> `dlopen'
[snip]
This is saying that compilation with CBE is
2005 Jan 08
3
[LLVMdev] Primer with LLVM
> >>> Would be great if we append into the documentation several "patters"
> >>> to show how perform with LLVM. It would accelerate the learn curve for
> >>> beginners like me, avoiding basic errors and mistakes. If I reach a
> >>> good level with LLVM I can make these.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure if I understand what you
2008 Oct 28
2
[LLVMdev] Debugging lli using bugpoint
Hi,
I have a program that runs when statically compiled using llc and gcc but
crashes with a segmentation fault when run with lli. I am trying to debug it
with bugpoint and the initial part of bugpoint seems to be suggesting that I
am somehow missing the linking with the libraries having dlsym/dlopen
although I am passing it to lli :
*$ bugpoint -run-jit
2007 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH (rest of code changes) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"
Here is the bulk of the sanitizing.
My residual doubts center around the question
whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code
in 2.0/2.1.
I need a definitive word on this to proceed.
My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are
still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code
(instead of *bit*code).
I did not touch those areas, so the attached