search for: nowar100

...t; work on such reversible transformations done (I can't recall where atm), but > that was only in very simple cases that could be described by regular > expressions. > > So the short answer is "no." > > -Joshua > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Wenhan Gu <nowar100 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have a source code: >> int* p = malloc(...); >> >> After translating to llvm::Module, We can know the source code did not >> call free. >> I know we can hack this into Module. >> >> But my qu...

Dear all, I'm a beginner in LLVM field. If any rudeness, I feel sorry to that. I have checked-out the source and built successfully. Now I want to use it, so I write a simple code. // context.cpp #include "llvm/LLVMContext.h" int main() { llvm::LLVMContext& context = llvm::getGlobalContext(); return 0; } $ clang++ `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --libs` context.cpp But

Hi all, in this case: ... int* p = ... int* q = p; ... How can I know that data-flow from p to q, i.e., which LLVM pass of header files could I use? Thank you all. -- Best regards, Wen-Han -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110430/a9164c60/attachment.html>

...t; work on such reversible transformations done (I can't recall where atm), but > that was only in very simple cases that could be described by regular > expressions. > > So the short answer is "no." > > -Joshua > > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 9:16 PM, Wenhan Gu <nowar100 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I have a source code: >> int* p = malloc(...); >> >> After translating to llvm::Module, We can know the source code did not >> call free. >> I know we can hack this into Module. >> >> But my qu...

Thanks very much for all of your answer. I was confused by definition of 'portable' by my own thinking. Now I Correct that. (ILP32 is in another project, It's my typo. Thanks) So let me make a conclusion about this. LLVM IR can be a portable language, just depending on our front-end configuration or origin language limits. Did I mistake that? Thank a lot all of you. 2010/12/22

Dear all, I heard a different way to solve it. $ apt-get install libc6-dev-amd64 Maybe this can help? 2010/12/30 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > Hello > > > Thanks for the tip. My PS3 workstationn is installed a 32-bit OS. I will > Please carefully read the readme.llvm file in the llvm-gcc source > directory. > At least it will give some hints how

Hello all, I wanna build a static linked executable using llvm. But I failed. My question is Can we use -static using llvm? Thanks for any response. Below is details ======== First I use $ clang++ test.cc `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --libs` I works as usual. But if I use $ clang++ test.cc `llvm-config --cxxflags --ldflags --libs` -static It yells lots of undefined reference, like

Hi all, I had faced a problem. The result from jit cannot feed to c++filt tool decoding correctly. Could they not be the same? BTW, which part of source code can I find the detail? Thanks all. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110202/e07cbf2e/attachment.html>

Hi all, I have a source code: int* p = malloc(...); After translating to llvm::Module, We can know the source code did not call free. I know we can hack this into Module. But my question is, could we hack it back to source code? After fixing, the source will become: int *p = malloc(...); free(p); Is this feasible? Thanks all very much. -- Best regards, Wen-Han -------------- next part

Thanks for your answer very much. I wonder for what reason does ARM use *void ** but X86 use *char ** ? Seems ARM uses void * since its spec said that. But X86? I cannot find any reason or spec to specify why X86 uses char *, not void * directly? Could anyone give me some hints? Thanks a lot. 2011/5/23 John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> > On May 22, 2011, at 8:49 PM, Wenhan Gu wrote:

Hi all, I know __builtin_va_list is target-specific, and ARM has typedef void* __builtin_va_list; X86 has typedef char* __builtin_va_list; It seems they can be treated as the same prototype,i.e.. void*, at the header level. What I want to ask is: If I write a program use "typedef *void** __builtin_va_list" on X86, and run it. Would I face any problem on run-time? I think it won't

Dear all, I cannot find the answer of this question. We all know LLVM IR is portable, but it uses ILP32 and record the target layout within the IR. target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64 :64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64" target triple = "x86_64-linux-gnu" It seems it already assigned