similar to: [LLVMdev] Constant function pointers and inlining

Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: > Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article >> that has been posted to gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel as well. >> >> Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: >> >>> This is x86_64. I have a problem where an absolute memory load >>> >>> define

After hacking away at it for a bit, it looks like the mystery function is actually a stub function. The function pointer is coming from a vtable, which gets filled in with pointers to stub functions. Is there any way to do the round trip for a stub function? Two possible solutions come to mind: 1) Modify getGlobalValueAtAddress to work for pointers to stub functions 2) Add a

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: > >> Óscar Fuentes wrote: >>> The following message is a courtesy copy of an article >>> that has been posted to gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel as well. >>> >>> Andrew Haley <aph at redhat.com> writes: >>> >>>> This is x86_64. I have a problem where an

I'm attempting to instrument virtual function calls in my code. After each virtual call I'm calling my own registerMethod function, with an integer marking the location of the call and a pointer to the function that was called. However, and this is where I get confused, the function pointer doesn't match any of the functions in my module. I'd hoped to call

On Feb 10, 2008, at 5:33 AM, Robert Zeh wrote: > I'm attempting to instrument virtual function calls in my code. > After each virtual call I'm calling my own registerMethod function, > with an integer marking the location of the call and a pointer to > the function that was called. > > However, and this is where I get confused, the function pointer >

On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Robert Zeh wrote: > After hacking away at it for a bit, it looks like the mystery > function is actually a stub function. You know, I had this lengthy email written to cover all the details and I decided not to send it as I wasn't sure if that was what you were hitting a stub and I didn't want to confuse the issue if it wasn't due to stubs...

This is x86_64. I have a problem where an absolute memory load define i32 @foo() { entry: %0 = load i32* inttoptr (i64 12704196 to i32*) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %0 } generates incorrect code on LLVM 2.4: 0x7ffff6d54010: mov 0xc1d9c4(%rip),%eax # 0x7ffff79719da 0x7ffff6d54016: retq should be 0x7ffff6d54010: mov 0xc1d9c4, %eax 0x7ffff6d54016: retq

Hi, I think this is probably easiest to explain with code (I only provided the essentials for clarity): // begin file jit.cpp int myglobal; void printMyGlobal() { printf("myglobal: %d\n", myglobal); } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { // This file, jit.cpp has been compiled to bitcode (clang -S -emit-llvm jit.cpp) // and is read into Module M here Module *M = ...

For some time now I try to get my code working. This Monday I switched to RJS (first with 1.0 + plugin) and yesterday to Edge Rails, so I guess I''ve been using the most recent version. I have a div with id="detail" which I want to update with a partial. If I''m using page.replace_html the content will be replaced with text, i.e. the javascript won''t become

I''m building a users web service (direct dispatching) that will (I hope) allow several other applications to manage the same pool of users. Plus it will act as a single-sign-on solution for what I''m doing. But I''m having difficulty accessing the UserAPI. Here''s what I''ve done so far: $> rails usermanagement - "usermanagement" is the

On Feb 12, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Robert Zeh wrote: > After hacking away at it for a bit, it looks like the mystery function > is actually a stub function. The function pointer is coming from a > vtable, which gets filled in with pointers to stub functions. > > Is there any way to do the round trip for a stub function? Two > possible solutions come to mind: > 1) Modify

I am doing a xml rpc client. Is there a way to display what I''m sending to the server??? This is the code: class OrderApi < ActionWebService::API::Base api_method :IPLWSNroDisponible, :expects => [{:app_key => :string}, {:number_type => :string}, {:number_sub_type => :string},

Hey so, People are asking about Mongrel Ruby 1.9 compatibility. Isn''t the point of 1.9 for library developers to have time to get ready for 2.0? It''s not like 1.9 is a production release. Evan -- Evan Weaver Cloudburst, LLC