search for: reify

...ole structure once through an ASan API call and then have all the relevant information. Our debugger team would really like to have the same functionality available for live processes and core dumps, since that is a better user experience. In the following weeks, we'll be submitting patches to reify some of the information available in the API and error reports. Please comment on information you'd like to see reified too. Thank you, Filipe

...er, is that */any call into the RTS may then change the stack pointer*./  LLVM presumably has no support for this.  Without such support, however, GHC must spill all locals to memory at every call into the RTS.  It seems to me that this is why GHC cannot transform its output into SSA form: GHC must reify its stack. It would be nice (both for GHC and for llgo) if LLVM could be made to treat the stack pointer as a volatile register that may be changed by any function call.  In this model, the stack pointer needs to be treated the same as any other GC’d object — stack maps need to be emitted for it,...

I'm not familiar with PNaCl but, FWIW, I'd say the three main advancements the CLR made over the JVM are: . Structs (aka value types). . Reified generics. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/64031/designandimplementationofgenerics.p df . Tail call elimination. http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/69132/babel01.pdf Structs give you more freedom around memory

...hat case? One thing you might be able to do is to duplicate the error block so you have a different target for every callbr, but I'd consider that an invalid transform (because the address of the block is potentially being used as a value in the asm too). Another thing you could perhaps do is reify the source-block-number as an actual value -- storing a "1" before the callbr in true, and storing a "2" before the callbr in "false". Then conditional-branch based on that...but that's real ugly... On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 3:18 PM Nick Desaulniers via cfe-dev <...

I''m using paper_trail gem in ruby. The "versions" table table has created.From that cannot able to access various methods as (reify,originator, ...etc..,) in rails application. I Migrated the column for these methods .Also addes these specifications in models. Why i can''t get trouble here. Also how to pass these methods. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails...

...implementations, have never been in favour with compiler writers. The first generation of Modula-3 compilers (with C backends) generally opted for inlining nested functions. Nowadays the use of static links is the only game in town. llvm makes this difficult as the static link technique obliges to reify stack frames as structures in order for individual entries to be accessible through the "getelementptr" instruction. This becomes very unwieldy in the case of a large nesting tree (nested function may also call each other at intermediate levels). While llvm's ban on pointer arithmetic...

...es myclass alias char?", we'd need to check (myclass is reachable from char || char is reachable from myclass), similar to how two things alias if they are ascendant/descendant of each other in the current tree representation. Since we're going both ways, I think it makes sense to just reify the reachability edges like this (note the lack of direction, now to check if two things alias, we simply ask if there is an edge connecting them): +--- char ---+ | | | float | int |___ MyClass __| This can be represented with a (pretty dense) adjacency matri...

On Sat, 19 May 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts >> ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the >> circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions >> occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually >> replacing the

On Tue, 22 May 2007 23:52:46 -0700 (PDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: >On Sun, 20 May 2007, Bram Adams wrote: >> On a related note: while using llvmc I have some test cases where the >> following error now pops up on Linux X86 (not on OSX): >> >> <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'debug' defined more than once! >> llvmc:

Hello, Bram > * It seems that a C-call like printf("---\n") is transformed to puts > ("---") in the LLVM IR instead of keeping it a printf. What are the > circumstances in which this happens? Do other similar conversions > occur? Can this be turned off (lower optimisation level?)? Manually > replacing the puts-calls by a printf-call is not

...k="-L${ASPICERE2_INSTALL}/lib" -Tlnk="-L${SWI_LIB}" -Tlnk="- load=${ASPICERE2_INSTALL}/lib/weaver" -Tlnk="-load=$ {ASPICERE2_INSTALL}/lib/native" -Tlnk="-disable-opt" -Tlnk="- constmerge" -Tlnk="-globalsmodref-aa" -Tlnk="-reify" -Tlnk="-match" - Tlnk="-weave" -Tlnk="-globalsmodref-aa" -Tlnk="-internalize" -Tlnk="- ipsccp" -Tlnk="-globalopt" -Tlnk="-constmerge" -Tlnk="-deadargelim" - Tlnk="-instcombine" -Tlnk="-inline&quo...

...is to duplicate the error block so you >> have a different target for every callbr, but I'd consider that an invalid >> transform (because the address of the block is potentially being used as a >> value in the asm too). >> >> Another thing you could perhaps do is reify the source-block-number as an >> actual value -- storing a "1" before the callbr in true, and storing a "2" >> before the callbr in "false". Then conditional-branch based on that...but >> that's real ugly... >> > -------------- next part...

Hi folks, I'm trying to figure out the return address of a function in an LLVM pass, i.e., the byte address right after the end of the call instruction (so that I can initialize a global variable with the return address of a function for a sanity check). Due to some other constraints, I have to run this pass in somewhere in the midend. At a high level, I want to find the address after a call

Hello, This email picks up the thread that to my knowledge was last discussed here: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2015-July/088103.html In brief, infinite loops containing no side effects produce undefined behavior in C++ (and C in some cases), however in other languages, they have fully defined behavior. LLVM's optimizer currently assumes that infinite loops eventually terminate

I''m working my way through the book Agile Web Development with Rails, and I am in the section where the book has me creating a display_cart method and the associated view. When I copied the code from the book into the view, it threw this error. If anyone could give me some hints where I should be looking I''d appreciate it. NoMethodError in Store#display_cart Showing

Hi Vedant, > I enjoyed reading through your EuroLLVM slides and OOPSLA paper. > Detecting the creation of contract-violating pointers is an > interesting idea, and your paper demonstrates that the checking can > be comprehensive and effective. Glad you enjoyed them. :-) > However, I have concerns about the quality of diagnostics, the > complexity of the driver, and about

[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.] On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a > document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to > support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as > always will need to