similar to: [LLVMdev] Why does the x86-64 JIT emit stubs for external calls?

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 || >

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 =

tailcall optimization stop working in jit (lli) in revision 45527. i guess this is because the jit is tailjmping to the wrong function address. the following change would reenable tailcallopt in jit. But i am pretty sure that this is not the correct fix (since i don't really understand what is going on :). maybe evan can comment on this? regards arnold Index:

Thanks All In fact, to answer Pete, I was trying to do as much as possible like valgrind including as much as possible, which includes all tools. M very elated to know about ASan, given the fact that LLVM is Compile time whereas valgrind is Dynamic, need to rethink, Can you guys check this. build clang 3.2 but I got this linker error. Let me also examine closely clang++ -W -Wall

Turns out compiler-rt was missing as pointed out by Kostya. Any clue why line number is not printed, It got compiled with -g -O1 along with flags specified in the link I got following lines on RHEL 6.3 clang 3.2 ==10474== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0x7fb3eb2c6b90 at pc 0x415394 bp 0x7fff49175eb0 sp 0x7fff49175ea8 READ of size 4 at 0x7fb3eb2c6b90 thread T0 #0

Did you checkout compiler-rt? This page has detailed info on building asan: http://code.google.com/p/address-sanitizer/wiki/HowToBuild?tm=4 --kcc On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 9:38 PM, Devchandra L Meetei <dlmeetei at gmail.com>wrote: > Thanks All > In fact, to answer Pete, I was trying to do as much as possible like > valgrind including as much as possible, which includes all tools.

Hi All Will LLVM be suitable for developing valgrind like tools --Regards --Dev -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130107/ab5ef642/attachment.html>

> Will LLVM be suitable for developing valgrind like tools It is already used by several such tools, eg ASAN, klee. Ciao, Duncan.

OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in TargetInstrInfo.h. For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to X86InstrInfo. What do you think? Nicolas Evan Cheng wrote: > > I think both of these belong to TargetInstrInfo. And

Here you go: Starting program: /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/build/llvm-gcc/gcc/cc1 -fpreprocessed -march=k8 testcase.i -o /dev/null warning: no loadable sections found in added symbol-file system-supplied DSO at 0x7fff0d5fe000 [Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled] foocc1: /home/chandlerc/code/compilers/llvm-gcc/gcc/llvm-types.cpp:81: const llvm::Type* llvm_set_type(tree_node*, const

Does this fix it? Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h =================================================================== --- lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h (revision 48879) +++ lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h (working copy) @@ -144,9 +144,12 @@ std::string getDataLayout() const { const char *p; - if (is64Bit()) - p = "e-p:64:64-s:64-f64:64:64-i64:64:64-f80:128:128"; -

Probably better to move the discussion to a bug? Evan On Mar 27, 2008, at 9:04 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Does this fix it? > > Index: lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h > =================================================================== > --- lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h (revision 48879) > +++ lib/Target/X86/X86Subtarget.h (working copy) > @@ -144,9 +144,12 @@ > >

Hi Elena, > (2) Proposal > Define one more Code Model, let's say "LargeNearConst", which will allow to put constants in .text. Isn't that a little heavy-handed? The large model only requires the less efficient access for symbols we can't control, and in fact x86 still uses pc-relative conditional branches within a function so it can't pretend to support a single

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "Robinson, Paul" <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. > While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, > there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. > Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and

On 29 March 2017 at 02:33, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > sin/cos are libm functions, and so a libcall to those need to honour the > floating point ABI requests. The calling convention to be followed there > should match `-mfloat-abi` (that is, -mfloat-abi=hard => AAPCS/VFP, > -mfloat-abi=soft => AAPCS). Exactly, but they're not, and that's

I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and error-prone (or we wouldn't see so many violations in code reviews, eh?). Now, I understand that Google has some sort

Hi all, I analyzed more and ready (1) to describe the problem and (2) I have a proposal. (1) Problem description: In X86_64 target the Code Model is "Large". It means that address is 64-bit and IP-relative memory operand can't be used in this case. (Because in IP-relative memory operand the displacement is 32-bit). In order to load constant, we use 2 instructions. movabsq

Comments below. On Apr 15, 2008, at 4:24 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the > implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and > GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in > TargetInstrInfo.h. > > For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to > X86InstrInfo. >

Based on cmake/modules/LLVMLibDeps.cmake, I produced a graphviz dot file and then manually removed components and edges until the graph was small enough to be presentable. I don't know if I can actually use LLVM due to its humongousness, but I hope the graph will be helpful to others attempting to comprehend LLVM. PNG attached; dot file follows. digraph G { ipo

Hey Evan, At the point of the instructions you suggested I step through, X86ISelLowering has this state: - this 0x00000000005fe728 {VarArgsFrameIndex=-842150451 RegSaveFrameIndex=-842150451 VarArgsGPOffset=3452816845 ...} llvm::X86TargetLowering * const + llvm::TargetLowering {TM={...} TD=0x00000000008edac0