search for: runtimemodul

Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "runtimemodul".

Did you mean: runtimemodule
2011 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] Argument's types mismatch when creating CallInst.
Hello. I have an .bc, which defines @foo(%type* arg1, %type* arg2, %type* arg3). Firstly, i do this: runtimeModule = getLazyIRFileModule("runtime.bc", smd, llctx); then this: fooFunction = runtimeModule->getFunction("foo"); myType = runtimeModule->getTypeByName("type"); After that, i'm creating another module: myModule = new Module("My Module", llctx); and...
2011 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] Argument's types mismatch when creating CallInst.
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 12:18 AM, arrowdodger <6yearold at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello. I have an .bc, which defines @foo(%type* arg1, %type* arg2, %type* > arg3). > Firstly, i do this: > > runtimeModule = getLazyIRFileModule("runtime.bc", smd, llctx); > > then this: > > fooFunction = runtimeModule->getFunction("foo"); > myType = runtimeModule->getTypeByName("type"); > > After that, i'm creating another module: > > myModule = new M...
2014 Jan 26
2
[LLVMdev] MCJIT versus getLazyBitcodeModule?
...- MCJIT only manages the jit-module (the runtime-module is not > associated to MCJIT through addModule) > - When I have to call a runtime function from the jit-module, I define > an external reference to the function in the jit-module. Something > like: > > llvm::Function* orig = runtimeModule->getFunction("my-function"); > llvm::Function* copy = > (llvm::Function*)jitModule->getOrInsertFunction(orig->getName(), > orig->getFunctionType()); > > This step is not mandatory as you will see after (but I have not > tested a direct use of remote referenc...
2014 Jan 21
4
[LLVMdev] MCJIT versus getLazyBitcodeModule?
Thanks for the pointers. Am I correct in assuming that putting the precompiled bitcode into a second module and linking (or using the object caches) would result in ordinary function calls, but would not be able to inline the functions? -- lg On Jan 21, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Kaylor, Andrew <andrew.kaylor at intel.com> wrote: > I would say that the incompatibility is by design. Not