similar to: [LLVMdev] JIT stubs for functions with external linkage

On 11 Jun 2007, at 22:35, Jan Rehders wrote: > It's inside PPCJITInfo::relocate but unfortunately I could not figure > out anything from the source. It looks like it's calculating new > addresses for functions which does not make much sense for a native > function, at all On the PPC, unconditional branches are limited to 24 bit signed displacements. When you call a function

Hi, > I know nothing about this, but the failed assertion suggests the PPC > code generator can't cope with a constant that's bigger than > expected at > that point. Have you taken a look at PPCJITInfo.cpp:382? It may shed > some light. It's inside PPCJITInfo::relocate but unfortunately I could not figure out anything from the source. It looks like it's

OK, fixed the problem with the intrin.h header that doesn't exist in previous versions of VS... -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: JIT.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060126/7e55b0d0/attachment.ksh>

On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > In X86CodeGen.cpp, the following code appears in the handler used for > CALL64pcrel32 instructions: > > // Assume undefined functions may be outside the Small > codespace. > bool NeedStub = > (Is64BitMode && > (TM.getCodeModel() == CodeModel::Large || >

In X86CodeGen.cpp, the following code appears in the handler used for CALL64pcrel32 instructions: // Assume undefined functions may be outside the Small codespace. bool NeedStub = (Is64BitMode && (TM.getCodeModel() == CodeModel::Large || TM.getSubtarget<X86Subtarget>().isTargetDarwin())) || Opcode == X86::TAILJMPd;

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Evan Cheng<evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 10, 2009, at 12:17 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > >> In X86CodeGen.cpp, the following code appears in the handler used for >> CALL64pcrel32 instructions: >> >>       // Assume undefined functions may be outside the Small codespace. >>       bool NeedStub =

Hi Morten, If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I can test them as I have VS2005 now, so then with Chris'es okay then they could be distributed with LLVM. Thanks, Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morten Ofstad" <morten at hue.no> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 26,

On Mar 11, 2010, at 6:07 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Robb Kistler wrote: > >> I'm trying to build a very large shared library (bundle) for PPC on >> Mac OS X 10.5. The build looks something like this, where >> mybundlebitcode.o is the large object >> >> llc -relocation-model=pic -o=mybundle.s mybundlebitcode.o >> gcc

Hello, This is my first post on this mailing list, so bear with me... My name is Morten Ofstad and I work for Hue AS (www.hue.no), a company that makes 3D Visualization software. We are looking into using LLVM for JIT compiling shader programs, to replace our own (slow) VM. A requirement for this is that we can compile LLVM in VS7.1, so I contacted Paolo Invernizzi to find the status of his

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, Jonas Maebe wrote: > On 11 Jun 2007, at 22:35, Jan Rehders wrote: >> It's inside PPCJITInfo::relocate but unfortunately I could not figure >> out anything from the source. It looks like it's calculating new >> addresses for functions which does not make much sense for a native >> function, at all > > On the PPC, unconditional branches

Hi Kev, I'm glad to hear llvm-objdump is getting attention. I'm unclear on how much output specialization one could (or should) do for ELF vs. Mach-O. If you're game, let's compare an example: $ cat labeltest.s .text foo: nop bar: bum: nop jmp bar jmp bum jmp baz nop baz: nop Assembling for x86 and llvm-objdump'ing, i get $ llvm-mc

Hello, I've tracked down a new memory leak which started happening when I enabled constant propagation (I created my own passmanager which I run before calling getPointerToGlobal to JIT the function I have generated - is this OK?). The reason is that FP constants are being spilled to memory as there is no immediate fp load available. In my case this is a bit unnecessary since the

On 10/12/2017 03:53 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> There is also another problem: >>> >>> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP >>> [ 1.312901] Modules linked in: >>> [ 1.313389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.14.0-rc4+ #6

On 10/12/2017 03:53 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 10/12/2017 03:27 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote: >> On 12/10/17 20:11, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: >>> There is also another problem: >>> >>> [ 1.312425] general protection fault: 0000 [#1] SMP >>> [ 1.312901] Modules linked in: >>> [ 1.313389] CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: init Not tainted 4.14.0-rc4+ #6

Hi, I have a pass that creates a GlobalVariable, when I ran it get the following error: Global is external, but doesn't have external or weak linkage! i8** @myvar This is how I create the GlobalVariable: ------------------------------------------------ new llvm::GlobalVariable(*M, IRB.getInt8PtrTy(), false, llvm::GlobalValue::CommonLinkage, nullptr, "myvar", NULL,

The project files need frequent updating. I cannot maintain VS2005 project files, so while they could be distributed with LLVM, they will become broken fast. Also, VS2003 and VS2005 project and solution files cannot coexist in the same directories, further complicating matters. Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi Morten, > > If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I

On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Morten Ofstad wrote: > This is my first post on this mailing list, so bear with me... My name > is Morten Ofstad and I work for Hue AS (www.hue.no), a company that > makes 3D Visualization software. We are looking into using LLVM for JIT > compiling shader programs, to replace our own (slow) VM. A requirement Neat! > for this is that we can compile LLVM in

Hello, Bram. > My question: does this change break certain design decisions, > optimisations, ...? This is bug in the source code. You have two symbols with the same name in the different object files, which is definite redefinition. At least one of them should be declared with "extern". -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint

On Fri, 25 May 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> My question: does this change break certain design decisions, >> optimisations, ...? > This is bug in the source code. You have two symbols with the same name > in the different object files, which is definite redefinition. At least > one of them should be declared with "extern". Shouldn't these symbols get

Hi, Op 26-mei-07, om 23:14 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > Shouldn't these symbols get "common" linkage, aka llvm weak linkage? > > Are you building the source with -fno-common? Yes. What does this mean? Kind regards, Bram Adams GH-SEL, INTEC, Ghent University (Belgium)