search for: straup

...code is crashing on jit too and when using the interpreter it is much easier to iron out the problems. Although as it seems at the current state the interpreter is quite unreliable. Thank you, Kristaps. On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Kristaps Straupe wrote: >> >> Hi! >> >> We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute >> it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated >> bitcode. > > The interpreter is under-maintained in general, but this bug in particular &g...

On 02/01/2010 01:13 PM, Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hello again! > > We have fetched the latest llvm sources from repository and the > original problem has went away. Though now we are facing a new problem > with interpreter on the following c code: > > -------------- > #include <stdarg.h> > #include <st...

Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hi! > > We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute > it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated > bitcode. The interpreter is under-maintained in general, but this bug in particular is fixed SVN as-of r86428. Are you on a...

Hi! We are compiling a very large C project in llvm and trying to execute it in interpreter. There is a problem with executing the generated bitcode. We are using lli.exe and llvm-gcc.exe from official 2.6 LLVM release. We have localized the problem to following c code: -------------------- int f(unsigned char x) __attribute__((noinline)); int f(unsigned char x) { return x - 1; } int main()

Hello! We are running bitcode with JIT on visual studio project and we get strange external function call problems (jit generates jump to 00000000 address as can be seen in debugger) for libgcc functions like __fixunsdfdi, __divdi3 etc. Currently we have attached our own implementations of these functions to overcome this problem. What would be the correct way to do this on Visual Studio? Why

On 02/03/2010 01:08 PM, Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hello again. > > I still think that you are wrong. Realignement with and esp,-16 not > always changes stack poiner. If esp is already aligned to 16 byte > boundary, it will not change! Take a look at following example. > Assume esp has value 0x000001000 at start of X86Co...

Hello again. I still think that you are wrong. Realignement with and esp,-16 not always changes stack poiner. If esp is already aligned to 16 byte boundary, it will not change! Take a look at following example. Assume esp has value 0x000001000 at start of X86CompilationCallback function. Then execution of it will yield following esp values: 0x000000FFC - after push ebp 0x000000FFC - after mov

Hello! We are experiencing a problem with jit generated instructions for arm target (we have built llvm gcc for arm arch using the llvm sources fetched from llvm svn a few days ago). It triggers assert in MachineOperand::getImm method (isImm() && "Wrong MachineOperand accessor") when the bitcode from the testcase (c code below in this email) is being run. We have found out that

Hi! We are running llvm jit x86 on MS Visual Studio 2005. It seems there is a bug in asm code in function X86CompilationCallback in file X86JITInfo.cpp. Current code sets stack pointer to invalid value in instruction "and esp, 16". Depending on current stack pointer value it sometimes overwrites ecx and edx registers with next three lines. We have fixed this problem by changing this