similar to: [LLVMdev] Function materializing in Java

On Apr 18, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I would like to apply the following patch (java-materialize.patch) > in order to materialize Java functions in vmkit. The current > implementation is not satisfactory because the materializeFunction > of a module provider is not supposed to do anything but read the > bitcode, which is not the case

Hi, I am trying to generate LLVM bytecode using CLANG and I ran into the following problem. If I run clang with the -emit-llvm option and then try to get a textual representation of the output using llvm-dis, the latter crashes because of a failed assertion in BitCodeReader.cpp, mentioning a "Type mismatch in value table" (the exact error message is appended at the end of this email).

Hi,all I tried to run the generated whole-program bitcode of BIND,but I got some information: 0 lli 0x0000000000feda16 1 lli 0x0000000000fed88f 2 libpthread.so.0 0x0000003df340eee0 3 libc.so.6 0x0000003df28332f5 gsignal + 53 4 libc.so.6 0x0000003df2834b20 abort + 384 5 libc.so.6 0x0000003df282c2fa __assert_fail + 234 6 lli

I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. What is the preferred way to inject a llvm:Function which contains basic blocks into the Module + JIT? My understanding (perhaps

+cc Artem, who added the LinkOnlyNeeded flag. On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Neil, > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 5:20 AM, Neil Henning via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > TL;DR - when linking from a lazily loaded module and using > Linker::LinkOnlyNeeded, bodies of used functions

Carter Cheng wrote: > I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. > > What is the preferred way to inject a llvm:Function which contains basic blocks into the Module +

OK. About the error it’s a long story, so it’s probably better to pin some source code here. Below is a piece of code related to my problem, clipped from lib/Transforms/Utils/ValueMapper.cpp. I was wondering what “materialized” means here. Value *Mapper::mapBlockAddress(const BlockAddress &BA) { Function *F = cast<Function>(mapValue(BA.getFunction())); // F may not have

Hi, For the first problem, try clang -S -emit-llvm test.c -o test.ll you should get the llvm IR and you don't need to use llvm-dis. Although I have tried your example with the exact commands and source code you posted and it worked just fine for me. I also use clang and LLVM 2.8 compiled from sources. For the second problem, suppress -emit-llvm, since you want the executable, not an object

On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Carter Cheng wrote: > I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in > hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from > my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT > system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. ModuleProvider is a very simple concept. You can either load

TL;DR - when linking from a lazily loaded module and using Linker::LinkOnlyNeeded, bodies of used functions aren't being copied during linking. Previously on one of our products, we would lazily load our runtime module (around 9000 functions), and link some user module into this (which is in all practical use cases much smaller). Then, post linking, we have a pass that runs over the

Thanks for the reply. I actually managed to resolve this problem mostly to my satisfaction. I suspect based on your description of materializeFunction I may be best served by subclassing the ModuleProvider to do what I want. Thanks again. --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

On Mar 15, 2010, at 9:41 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2010, at 7:11 AM, Sebastian Schlunke wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> i ran into a problem when using blockaddress() with a label in another function. It seems to me that LLVM tries to remove the label used in blockaddress because it seems like it is not used, but in fact it may be used somewhere with a

Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> writes: > So why the intrinsic? I want to create the PTX string from an LLVM-IR > optimizer pass, that should be loaded into clang, dragonegg, opt, .. You want to codegen in the optimizer? I'm confused. > An LLVM-IR optimizer pass does not have access to the file system and > it can not link to the LLVM back ends to directly create

On Mar 15, 2010, at 10:07 AM, Bob Wilson wrote: >>> An earlier revision simply generated asm-code, where the appropriate label was missing, thus causing gcc to fail when i wanted to compile the asm-file. >> >> Here is a slightly reduced testcase: >> >> define i8* @test1() nounwind { >> entry: >> ret i8* blockaddress(@test_fun, %test_label) >> }

I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not cause this assert. LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08). Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: amdfam10 I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz I have attached

On Nov 10, 2007, at 11:07 PM, Christopher Lamb wrote: > I've been playing around with clang/LLVM looking at adding partial > support for the draft technical report for embedded C extensions > (TR18037, http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/ > n1169.pdf), specifically named address spaces. > > Named address spaces need to be tracked in LLVM in essentially all

On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 11, 2011, at 1:48 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> I discovered recently that RegAllocFast spills all the registers before every function call. This is the root cause of one of our recursive functions that takes about 150 bytes of stack when built with gcc (same at -O0 and -O2, or 120 bytes

Hi, I'm new to VMKit and I'm trying to use its AOT Java compiler but I'm immediately getting an error message which I don't understand. Everything was compiler as suggested in the Getting Started tutorial, using GNU Classpath. I try to run: llcj ../../tools/trainer/Release+Asserts/HelloWorld.class and get the following output: Can not materiale a function in AOT mode.0

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> writes: > > > So why the intrinsic? I want to create the PTX string from an LLVM-IR > > optimizer pass, that should be loaded into clang, dragonegg, opt, .. > > You want to codegen in the optimizer? I'm confused. > > An LLVM-IR optimizer pass does not

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode