Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "linkinitems".
2009 Sep 23
0
[LLVMdev] ld with gold-plugin can do this?
Sanjiv Gupta wrote:
> Nick Lewycky wrote:
>> Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A common followup question is "but how do I link native libraries into
>>> my .bc file". You don't. A .bc file is llvm ir, you can't put a native
>>> binary library into a .bc (barring sticking it in as a string, etc).
>>>
2009 Sep 22
2
[LLVMdev] ld with gold-plugin can do this?
Nick Lewycky wrote:
> Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> A common followup question is "but how do I link native libraries into
>> my .bc file". You don't. A .bc file is llvm ir, you can't put a native
>> binary library into a .bc (barring sticking it in as a string, etc).
>>
>> The build then looks like:
>>
>>
2009 Sep 01
1
[LLVMdev] Problem building libprofile.
...llvm::Module*, std::string*) + 1897
17 llvm-ld 0x00000000006d8a7d
llvm::Linker::LinkInModule(llvm::Module*, std::string*) + 41
18 llvm-ld 0x00000000006d7ff3
llvm::Linker::LinkInFile(llvm::sys::Path const&, bool&) + 1431
19 llvm-ld 0x00000000006d867e
llvm::Linker::LinkInItems(std::vector<std::pair<std::string, bool>,
std::allocator<std::pair<std::string, bool> > > const&,
std::vector<std::pair<std::string, bool>,
std::allocator<std::pair<std::string, bool> > >&) + 258
20 llvm-ld 0x00000000006b3050 main + 1...
2012 Dec 13
0
[LLVMdev] Memory leaks after llvm_shutdown
...bose);
if(argc >= 3){
int next_module_idx = 2;
Linker::ItemList linkItems;
while (next_module_idx < argc ){
bool is_native = false;
linkItems.push_back(make_pair(string(argv[next_module_idx]), false));
next_module_idx++;
}
Linker::ItemList natives;
if(llvm_linker.LinkInItems(linkItems, natives)){
cout << "Linking error! " << llvm_linker.getLastError()<< "\n";
return 3;
}
}
Module *m = llvm_linker.releaseModule();
string err;
ExecutionEngine *ee = EngineBuilder(m).setEngineKind(EngineKind::JIT).setErrorStr(&err).cr...
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