similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM JIT and Java Reflection style calls

I have just worked with this code. The architecture is fine, and I think that this code should be reused, It needs updating, however, because it does not compile with LLVM 2.1 (I prefer to use a stable version to focus my work, and port to LLVM 2.2 later). I have seen that one incompatibility is that this Java frontend requires C++ with exceptions, but LLVM is compiled with -fno-exceptions. For

Hi, I'm looking for interprocedural AAs and have, of course, found https://llvm.org/docs/AliasAnalysis.html. However, the AAs that come bundled with LLVM do not work interprocedurally in a way that I need it (on/with stack variables). The two interesting looking AAs come with the optional `poolalloc' module that hasn't been updated in years (I guess

On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > So I propose: > [snip] > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > effect of producing the fastest executable I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, because as written, -O3 sounds pretty scary: "regardless of computation time", and given some

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 12:23, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 12:16:12PM -0700, Reid Spencer wrote: > > So I propose: > > > [snip] > > -O3 = aggressive optimization, regardless of computation time with the > > effect of producing the fastest executable > > I would suggest splitting -O3 into 2 or more levels of optimization, > because as

Thanks again. One more question here: Since the regalloc works once per function, do I stil have access to the Call graph? Just saving information between regalloc passes for different functions may not be enough for my case. I will need to maintain the regalloc info of various passes in the call graph order. Anyways thanks for your inputs. I will get back if I need to learn more. Sanjiv On Nov

On 9/15/19 9:55 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > --- Short commit message; at a minimum, I'd probably at least mention that we thought about potential security issues, and didn't see how it could be abused. > .../reflection/nbdkit-reflection-plugin.pod | 23 ++++- > plugins/reflection/reflection.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++ > tests/Makefile.am

Hi, again, I think you can do it in the same way that the other allocators have been coded, i.e extend RA, register the pass and so forth. I am not sure about the best way to pass information among a run of RegAlloc to the other, maybe the other guys in the list could suggest something. Yet, you can always dump it into a file, and read it again, everytime it is necessary. Remember that

Hi! I'm trying to implement in R in an easy way the negative reflection method described in Silverman (1986) on p.31, ie I have a non-negative dataset and would like to estimate the density by applying a reflection method where the reflected points have weight -1. I thought there should be a way to evaluate the wanted kernel at the required points, in other words to calculate formula (2.16):

Thanks both. I looked over the getelementptr and bitcast documentation but I am still a bit confused by one point. lets say i have something like this. union { long Int; double float; long* IntRef; } Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way?

On 11/23/07, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira <fernando at cs.ucla.edu> wrote: > > > Hi, Sanjiv, > > those passes operate on the whole machine function. Each machine > function contains many basic blocks. If a program has many functions, the > register allocator will be called as many times, i.e it does not do > interprocedural allocation. > > best, > >

Hello everyone, I have been interested in compilers, especially in the optimization aspects from quite some time now. I don't know if I have a decent background to brag about, but all I can say is that I have tried very small things related to building a compiler [0]. However I admit that I am still new to a lot of things. Like many others who are interested in compilers, I am interested

Hello, I have a question. I would like to know if there is a way with the reflection and respond_to? to know if there is a relationship between tables. When I say that I mean if inside a model there is a Has_many or belongs_to declaration. Because I try to get this information dynamically, during the execution of a script. If someone has an idea even if it''s not with the reflection,

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? Not really; there's some discussion of that in the thread starting at

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? >> > > Not really; there's some discussion of that in

On Feb 3, 2008, at 7:09 PM, Ramón García wrote: > I have just worked with this code. The architecture is fine, and I > think that this code should be reused, > It needs updating, however, because it does not compile with LLVM 2.1 > (I prefer to use a stable version > to focus my work, and port to LLVM 2.2 later). > LLVM 2.2 comes out in a week, I would recommend using that over

Hi, I would like to know if there is a way to maintain database reflection for the ''new'' and ''edit'' views whilst removing scaffolding? I''m trying to create a webapp that will be somewhat maintainable by colleagues (that aren''t necessarily web developers) through simple manipulation of db table fields. For example to add another field to the

On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has > > announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, > > you'd be more than welcome to do so. > > My C++ knowledge is completely non-existant, but so far I've had a >

I am trying to write a ModulePass which requires PostDominator sets for every function in the module. Now finding post dominators is a function pass. The link on the llvm.org website says that : "Currently it is illegal for a ModulePass<http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#ModulePass>to require a FunctionPass <http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#FunctionPass>.

On Thu, 5 May 2005, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has >>> announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, >>> you'd be more than welcome to do so. >> >> My C++ knowledge

Thanks for your reply. Yes, I was about to recurse over the use list of the argument in the called function. I did not want to pursue that because with this solution, I am going to implement the interprocedural part myself and was wondering if that was not already done. I was not also 100% sure that this will work for any type of arguments. If, based on your response, this is my only solution