similar to: Serializing a single function to disk

> On 2015 Apr 29, at 19:13, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > > What is missing in the current textual format that doesn't allow going > all the way to machine code? Nothing. What's missing is the ability to serialize the machine level itself. Since many passes have to run to get from .ll to .s, it's currently hard (impossible?) to test

It is wholly self-contained. It's code that has no references to anything beyond a set of pointers passed in as arguments to the function. This piece of code doesn't do any OS work at all. It is purely calling function pointers, doing math and allocating memory. On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 12:57 AM Jorg Brown <jorg.brown at gmail.com> wrote: > > Qs for you: > > The code that

(I'm assuming you're building LLVM with clang, in this case?) Looks like IntrinsicInst is one of those "lies" in LLVM that works via type punning that's undefined behavior in C++, so it's code that should be fixed anyway. In any case, the reason this produces the debugging experience you're seeing is that LLVM (& GCC, for that matter) assumes that if your class

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 10:37 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Ok. > > I'm basically just following the model of the other fast-isel ports. > Yeah, not your fault - just an architectural quirk. It's possible we could workaround the debug info side of this by declaring the virtual dtor (or some other virtual function - even an explicit anchor as we have

I'm on a mission to generate code that can be loaded from disk without any modifications. This means no relocations can occur. Trying to see if this can be done for C++ code that uses STL but has no global variables, and a single function, but of course Clang will generate more functions for STL code. I want to provide an array of function pointers so that for all interactions STL needs to

Ok. I'm basically just following the model of the other fast-isel ports. On 01/30/2015 09:12 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > (I'm assuming you're building LLVM with clang, in this case?) > > Looks like IntrinsicInst is one of those "lies" in LLVM that works via > type punning that's undefined behavior in C++, so it's code that > should be fixed anyway.

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Ben Liblit <liblit at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > The first of those two calls is a vtable dispatch; the ideal answer would be > Base::virt() const and Derived::virt() const, without red() and blue(). >  Still, vtable lookups are complex, so I could imagine an over-approximation > here. > > The second of those two calls is just a non-deterministic

Thanks, David. I'd be happy to add the bindings .. is there a general way we add them? Or do you just scrub the API and make sensible judgements to the API? On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I

Hello, In an effort to help LLVM-style projects save memory, I’ve been toying with some macros that provide an alternative to C++ vtables that use LLVM-style RTTI design patterns instead. Is this something that LLVM or sub-projects think is worth pursuing? Or are the macros below too ugly/problematic? Feedback would be appreciated. Thanks, Dave //===- llvm/Support/VTable.h - LLVM-style

Are you saying the textual form of IR can change, but bitcode doesn't? I don't know what you mean by assembly syntax. Is there a changlog entry when the textual IR changes? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Lakeman <Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com> wrote: > Assembly syntax can and will break between versions. But bitcode should > generally be upgradeable, or a bug should

Hello, I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major features are added? Hayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150201/061f5949/attachment.html>

Hi, There seems to be a few threads about zpool hang, do we have a workaround to resolve the hang issue without rebooting ? In my case, I have a pool with disks from external LUNs via a fiber cable. When the cable is unplugged while there is IO in the pool, All zpool related command hang (zpool status, zpool list, etc.), put the cable back does not solve the problem. Eventually, I

> On Aug 7, 2015, at 12:32 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 11:30 AM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com <mailto:peter_cooper at apple.com>> wrote: > I’ve almost finished a patch to add back in either out of line destructors or anchor methods. We seem to use one or the one, relatively inconsistently. >

I want to specify a 2-level mixed model using the lme function in order to test an a priori hypothesis about the between-group values of the slopes but don't know how to do this . Here is the problem. Consider first the case of a single group. The model is: Y_i= a +bX_i + error where I indexes the different values of X and Y in this group . The a priori hypothesis of the slope is: b=K.

Hi I'm trying to create some global data representing something similar to a vtable in C++ (that'll be pointed to by the head of objects). I've called this a "metadata" table below. It includes some miscellaneous class-level information, as well as a typical vtable list-of-function-pointers. I need to have the vtable "inlined" into the metadata, in that I

Mike Stump wrote: > On Mar 24, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: >> Can someone more familiar with the llvm-gcc infrastructure comment on >> the difficulty of generating more strongly typed virtual function >> tables >> rather than just having them all be variable length arrays of pointers >> of unknown type and casting to the "known" type

On May 13, 2008, at 18:28, Dan Gohman wrote: > On May 12, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Talin wrote: > >> So the question is, what's the trade-off. In most languages that >> support exceptions, you tend to think of exceptions as expensive >> operations that should only be thrown if something truly >> "exceptional" happens. OTOH, the Java case is also made

John Criswell wrote: > 1) I'll try out your example C++ code below and see if I can get the > same results that you do. However, I'm at a conference right now (Usenix > Security), so I don't know exactly when I'll get to it. Excellent. Thanks, John! > 2) DSA can get pessimistic results when dealing with external code (as > Andrew described). It is designed for

On May 13, 2008, at 4:09 PM, Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On May 13, 2008, at 18:28, Dan Gohman wrote: > >> On May 12, 2008, at 6:49 PM, Talin wrote: >> >>> So the question is, what's the trade-off. In most languages that >>> support exceptions, you tend to think of exceptions as expensive >>> operations that should only be thrown if something truly

Lang, aren't you going to be the major (only?) player when it comes to Orc APIs, if you're not opposed to it having them in the C bindings proper will certainly help. That's my vote, I understand it is different from the previous cases but the API surface area here is relatively small. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jauhien, >