similar to: [LLVMdev] misc. patches

Morten, The leaks.patch file introduced a static destructor ordering problem which lead to garbled output. The comment above those lines of code indicates why it needs to be the way it is. My bad for committing it in the first place. Please be careful in the future. Reid. On Mon, 2004-12-13 at 05:30, Morten Ofstad wrote: > Hi, > > here are some minor patches that for various reasons

Hi, I'm part of an engineering team doing research on persistent memory support and we have stumbled upon an interesting problem. The issue is, we would like to be able to use the standard library containers in a persistent memory context (think NVDIMM-N). What I mean is that you allocate a container from said memory, use it like you normally would. After the application terminates, expectedly

Xapians! Did anybody wrote and would like to share a routines that parse result from doc.get_data() into some key and pair values in C++ ? Code: Xapian::Document doc = i.get_document(); string data = doc.get_data(); mymap = parse_result(data); As you know the data string contain all the data within the document delimited by "=" sign and "\n" new line and needs to be parse

Hello everyone, I'm working on a MachineFunctionPass that inserts a list of instructions into an Module so a later Pass can work on them. To do so I load a dummy .ll file created from a main stub, create the needed function stubs (ModulePass), insert Blocks and create instructions using BuildMI. I started with branch instructions:     const TargetMachine &TM = MF.getTarget();

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi, Artur > > >> I'm working on that backend now, so probably I'll send some more patches >> soon. I'd be grateful if you could give me some suggestions how to add >> some test for that backend to the test-suite. On Linux the output code >> could be run on Mono and compared with outputs for other backends but >>

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

On 03/22/2018 09:29 AM, Julius Hiller via llvm-dev wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I'm working on a MachineFunctionPass that inserts a list of instructions into an Module so a later Pass can work on them. > To do so I load a dummy .ll file created from a main stub, create the needed function stubs (ModulePass), insert Blocks and create instructions using BuildMI. > I started with

Bill Wendling wrote: > On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: > > >> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which ASSERT's in >> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when _HAS_ITERATOR_DEBUGGING is on). >> >> As a work-around, I commented out the debug

Thank you for your help Tom you are totally right with the registers but the command you suggest also doesn't work. After some research I found the following thread on the mailing list: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-February/110086.html With your help and the information about the condition codes I was able to resolve the error:         BuildMI(BB, BB.end(), DL,

Hello everyone, I'm a newbie of llvm. I'm trying to insert Intel MPX instruction BNDCU with BuildMI. I add my machinefunctionpass at addPreEmitPass2. Here is the code of insertion: BuildMI(MBB, MI, DL, TII->get(X86::BNDCU64rr)).addReg(X86::BND2, RegState::Define).addReg(X86::R10); And here is to stack track when I compiler program with modified llc:

Mesa (http://www.mesa3d.org/) uses LLVM to compile shaders. These are typically small bits of code (~10KB) and one application can use many of them. Mesa creates an ExecutionEngine with a default JIT memory manager for each shader it compiles, and keeps the engine around as long as the shader code is needed. This results in memory waste of ~1MB for each shader. Half the overhead is in the

Linking CXX executable ../../../../bin/lldb Scanning dependencies of target lldb-platform [100%] Building CXX object tools/lldb/tools/lldb-platform/CMakeFiles/lldb-platform.dir/lldb-platform.cpp.o *../../../../lib/liblldb.so.3.5: undefined reference to `llvm::SmallPtrSetImpl::SmallPtrSetImpl(void const**, unsigned int, llvm::SmallPtrSetImpl&&)'** **clang: error: linker command

I'll try to find out, or get someone to explain, why Mesa selects MCJIT with LLVM 3.1 only and JIT for other LLVM versions. I'm not keen to code a fourth attempt (1: copy JIT code, 2: delegating manger, 3: derive from DefaultJITMemoryManager, 4: copy MCJIT code) but I'll try copying code with MCJIT. Is that the usual route for people who want to delete all LLVM engines, etc. while

On 2016-05-20 19:58, David Majnemer via llvm-dev wrote: > I've come across this issue before and came to the following conclusion: > - We are not obligated to support objects that large, C11 5.2.4.1/1 only > requires that we support objects of size 65535! Right, the standard doesn't require it. But I guess you don't imply that it's fine for clang to silently miscompile

OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually passes :) On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's the patch for real this time :) >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here's a work

On Dec 31, 2008, at 5:57 AM, srs wrote: > Bill Wendling wrote: >> On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:51 PM, srs wrote: >> >> >>> 2. There seems to be an issue in ScheduleDAGSDNodes.h when in debug >>> mode. The problem is the evaluation of "&SUnits[0];" which >>> ASSERT's in >>> VC++'s vector[] implementation (when

Necessary when writing a client that wants to avoid unnecessary EINVAL errors from sending unaligned requests. At some point, we may want to add synchronous convenience API wrappers that do request splitting or read-modify-write to obey server constraints while still appearing to the library client as accepting any possible request. But such a wrapper should only be synchronous and not copied to

Hi Frank, The project really needs to be looking to move away from the old JIT and to MCJIT. LLVM is actively working to kill the old JIT. It’s already unmaintained. MCJIT is the way forward. Can you elaborate on what’s blocking its adoption for Mesa? -Jim On Oct 1, 2013, at 10:44 AM, Frank Henigman <fjhenigman at google.com> wrote: > Mesa (http://www.mesa3d.org/) uses LLVM to compile

Looks like your lldb is being compiled in C++11 mode and your llvm wasn't perhaps? -eric On Sat, Nov 23, 2013 at 12:57 AM, Marc Driftmeyer <mjd at reanimality.com> wrote: > Linking CXX executable ../../../../bin/lldb > Scanning dependencies of target lldb-platform > [100%] Building CXX object > tools/lldb/tools/lldb-platform/CMakeFiles/lldb-platform.dir/lldb-platform.cpp.o

The size suffix thing is a weird quirk in our assembler I should look into fixing. Instructions in at&t syntax usually have a size suffix that is often optional For example: add %ax, %bx and addw %ax, %bx Are equivalent because the register name indicates the size. but for an instruction like this addw $1, (%ax) There is nothing to infer the size from so an explicit suffix is