search for: yiping

gafferuk <gafferuk at gmail.com> writes: > Im confused. The function i wish to call is a return type of int. > Im calling it with int dd = yipee(1); > > What's wrong? Declare the function: int yipee(int); int main() { int dd = yipee(1); return 0; } If that still crashes, put a breakpoint on `yipee' and see if the execution gets there, if the argument is

> when I run my app the compiler says: > E:\Projects\Whistle\Whistle\Release>Whistle file.c > file.c(3) :  warning: implicit declaration of function 'yipee' is invalid in > C99 > >      [-Wimplicit-function-declaration] >    int dd = yipee(1); >             ^ This way you're creating a call to variadic function. It's of different type compared to function

I tried what you said, now I get: LLVM ERROR: Program used external function 'yipee' which could not be resolved! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'X86 Machine Code Emitter' on function '@main' did not even get as far as a breakpoint. Óscar Fuentes wrote: > > gafferuk <gafferuk at gmail.com> writes: > >> Im confused. The function i wish to call is

Heres my full code listing, im totally stuck. // Whistle.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include "stdafx.h" #include "clang/CodeGen/CodeGenAction.h" #include "clang/Driver/Compilation.h" #include "clang/Driver/Driver.h" #include "clang/Driver/Tool.h" #include

Im confused. The function i wish to call is a return type of int. Im calling it with int dd = yipee(1); What's wrong? Anton Korobeynikov-2 wrote: > >> when I run my app the compiler says: >> E:\Projects\Whistle\Whistle\Release>Whistle file.c >> file.c(3) :  warning: implicit declaration of function 'yipee' is invalid >> in >> C99 >>

ok, i have changed functionType code to: llvm::FunctionType* ft = llvm::FunctionType::get(llvm::Type::getInt32Ty(llvm::getGlobalContext()), std::vector<const llvm::Type*>(1, llvm::Type::getInt32Ty(llvm::getGlobalContext())), false); when I run my app the compiler says: E:\Projects\Whistle\Whistle\Release>Whistle file.c file.c(3) : warning: implicit declaration of function

hi, im creating a music application(image below). At the moment im using tcc compiler but im moving across to clang because of the improved compiler warnings. Can anyone please explain and show code so I can use clang's JIT to call functions in my application? Thanks. http://old.nabble.com/file/p29449300/51709341.jpeg -- View this message in context:

gafferuk <gafferuk at gmail.com> writes: > Can someone pease tell me what I am doing wrong? It is hard to say because you don't say what the problem is, but let's try. > Im trying to register an external function with the JIT, so can call > functions in my music > > application. > > Here my function > > int Execute(llvm::Module *Mod, char * const *envp)

Im trying to call fuctions in my music application from c code which will be used by the JIT. Here my function, i have made no other changes to the clang interpreter example. Can you see anything else I have to add to either the fuction below or to the c code to be JIT at the bottom? // function I wish to call. int yipee(int aVar) { aVar = 5; } int Execute(llvm::Module *Mod, char * const

On Aug 17, 2010, at 1:56 PM, gafferuk wrote: > > hi, im creating a music application(image below). > > At the moment im using tcc compiler but im moving across to clang because of > the improved compiler warnings. > Can anyone please explain and show code so I can use clang's JIT to call > functions in my application? You'll probably want to take a look at the

Can someone pease tell me what I am doing wrong? Im trying to register an external function with the JIT, so can call functions in my music application. Here my function int Execute(llvm::Module *Mod, char * const *envp) { llvm::InitializeNativeTarget(); std::string Error; llvm::OwningPtr<llvm::ExecutionEngine> EE( llvm::ExecutionEngine::createJIT(Mod, &Error)); if (!EE) {

...ntouched. Currently we use a simple CDFG (CFG, whose every node is a DFG) representation to do our synthesis. Of cource, it is not as powerful as LLVM, and we also want to use many of your transformation/analysis passes. That is why we want to move our project on top of your IR. Thanks, -Yiping ----- Original Message ----- From: Vikram Adve To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Cc: 'Zhiru Zhang' ; Guoling Han ; Yiping Fan Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 3:08 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Re: LLVM Compiler Infrastructure Tutorial Yiping, Could you describe in a lit...

...and bind it to be execute on a certain functional unit, etc. Besides the in-memory exchange of the information, we also want on-disk exchange. That introduces the write-out/parse-in problem. Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Misha Brukman" <brukman at uiuc.edu> To: "Yiping Fan" <fanyp at CS.UCLA.EDU>; "'Zhiru Zhang'" <zhiruz at CS.UCLA.EDU>; "Guoling Han" <leohgl at CS.UCLA.EDU> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2004 11:43 AM Subject: Re: LLVM Compiler Infrastructure Tutorial > I...

Yiping, If you are doing architectural synthesis, I do agree that you likely need to capture some operations in the instruction set, especially if you want to perform analyses and optimizations on those operations. Some specific comments: On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Yiping Fan wrote: > Vikram,...

I just picked up 3.10-pre15 and the "PXELINUX corrupts graphic filename referenced from DISPLAY file" bug is zapped. Yipee! Thanks hpa. And Arwin too, if that 'xor esi,esi' was the crux. However, LOCALBOOT -1 and LOCALBOOT 0 don't work the same as they did for me in 3.07. :-( 3.07: LOCALBOOT -1 apears to work as I have a hard disk listed in bios boot order after the

I'm CC'ing the llvm-dev list because other people are more knowledgeable about the bytecode format/encoding than I am. Please follow-up the replies to the list. On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:27:53AM -0700, Yiping Fan wrote: > We also want to extend the llvm instructions/intrinsic > functions/types/passes to support our high-level synthesis for > hardware. First of all, we want to enhance the Bytecode/Asm Writer > and reader to support many attributes for every instruction, basic > block, fun...

Yiping, Could you describe in a little more detail what your goals are? I agree with Reid and Misha that modifying the instruction definition is usually not advisable but to suggest alternatives, we would need to know more. Also, for some projects it could make sense to change the instruction set....

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:59:45AM -0700, Yiping Fan wrote: > Yeah. We need to have more extra fields in the instruction. Fo > example, during high-level synthesis, we must schedule an instruction > to a certain control step (or cycle), and bind it to be execute on a > certain functional unit, etc. Since we're talking about &qu...

Hi, Yiping! I am not sure of the answer to your question, but I am forwarding it to the LLVMdev list where I am sure someone will be able to answer you. Please send development questions directly to LLVMdev and you will get a response quicker, as it is read by many LLVM developers. ----- Forwarded message...

...er, "R --no-save --slave< my.R") #input to R for(){ print Writer data; } close Writer; #R output @result = <Read>; How can "my.R" read the stdin and figure out the relationship in the data? I tried realLines(), does not work. Thank you very much for your help!! Yiping -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.- r-help mailing list -- Read http://www.ci.tuwien.ac.at/~hornik/R/R-FAQ.html Send "info", "help", or "[un]subscribe" (in the "body", not the subject !) To: r-help-request at sta...