search for: owningbinari

Hi everyone, I’m currently playing with the clang driver and I encounter a strange bug. It occurs when I used the getSize function from the SymbolRef class. On iOS, the number returned is not always correct (some function have the right size). Sadly, This is my code (at the end of the main function into driver.cpp) : #### ErrorOr<OwningBinary<Binary>> BinaryOrErr =

Hello, I have the following snippet of code that causes valgrind to freak out over unitialized bytes. llvm::Expected<llvm::object::OwningBinary<llvm::object::ObjectFile>> e = llvm::object::ObjectFile::createObjectFile(llvm::StringRef(fname)); if (!e) { llvm::handleAllErrors(e.takeError(), [](const llvm::ErrorInfo<llvm::ECError> &EI) {

Hi Lang, thank You very much. I've used Your code and the creating of the object file works. I think the problem is after creating the object file. When I link the object file with ld I get an executable, which is working right. After changing the clang and llvm libraries from the package control version (.deb) to a own compiled version with debug options, I get an assert() fault. In void

Dear LLVM-Developers and Vinod Grover, we are trying to extend the cling C++ interpreter (https://github.com/root-project/cling) with CUDA functionality for Nvidia GPUs. I already developed a prototype based on OrcJIT and am seeking for feedback. I am currently a stuck with a runtime issue, on which my interpreter prototype fails to execute kernels with a CUDA runtime error. === How to use the

Hi, On 2017-02-01 23:20:40 -0800, Andres Freund wrote: > > Can you give a pointer to the patch so that I can assess the rough > > complexity? If it's simple enough, I'd be happy to help get it > > reviewed and in. If it's more complicated, I probably won't have the > > time to assist. > > Patch (and a prerequisite) attached. Took me a while to get

Having something like this available in tree would definitely be useful. For simplicity, why don't we start with support for the second style? This is the long term useful one and would be a good starting point for getting the code in tree. Can you give a pointer to the patch so that I can assess the rough complexity? If it's simple enough, I'd be happy to help get it reviewed

Hi, On 2016-12-29 13:17:50 -0800, Philip Reames wrote: > Having something like this available in tree would definitely be > useful. Cool. > For simplicity, why don't we start with support for the second style? This > is the long term useful one and would be a good starting point for getting > the code in tree. Works for me. > Can you give a pointer to the patch so that