similar to: [LLVMdev] problems with the 2.6 branch under x86_64

On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:08 PM, Jeff Cohen wrote: > MSVC++ is picky about this. It considers classes and structs to be > different types so you have to be consistent. If you forward declared > a > struct as a class within the same compilation unit, it would complain > about that too. It's not just linking. You are right... BTW, I've just fixed that problem in my checkout

I have just committed a change to Value.h that changes the Value class from using a "struct" declaration to a "class" declaration. I'm not sure why VC7.1 would generate different symbols for class vs. struct. I'm pretty certain that's a violation of the ABI. In any event, we should be consistent. The Value class is declared "class Value" in numerous places

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:02:12 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > I'd like to directly create executable code that i can > > stick in memory somewhere and jump into (call). > > Take a look at the llvm/examples directory. There are several small > programs that create LLVM IR on the fly and JIT compile it. I'm trying to take

I run the same simple Fibonacci computing code in JIT and as a native executable. I see that with argument 45 JIT runs for 11.3sec and executable runs for 7.5sec. Why there is such difference? Yuri -------- fib.ll -------- ; ModuleID = 'all.bc' @.str = private constant [12 x i8] c"fib(%i)=%i\0A\00", align 1 ; <[12 x i8]*> [#uses=1] define i32 @fib(i32 %AnArg) {

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:07:42 +0200 Oscar Fuentes <oscarfv at telefonica.net> wrote: > > Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > > > I'm trying to take assembly and create machine code I can execute. > > How close am I ? > > Your test case is not complete. Besides, which version of llvm are you > using? What are the commands for compiling

Solved it. Looking at the source of bison, I found an undocumented environment variable M4 that points to the m4 binary. Setting it to the absolute path did the job. When not present, it ought to find it in the path as it uses execvp. At least on Unix. I have no idea what it does on Windows as I could not get the source used to build the Windows version (the installer claimed it installed the

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

Valery, Your JIT sample program has been added to projects/HowToUseJIT. I have defaulted the license to the standard UIUC license. Let me know if that's not okay and I'll fix it. If you continue to work on this (providing a command line option to use either interpreter or JIT would be nice), please provide patches against these files and I'll commit them for you. Here's the

Hi, all I found the example code examples/HowToUseJIT.cpp also shows the same error. Attachment is the LLVM module created by HowToUseJIT. And here is the error, Running foo: %X4<def> = LDtoc <ga:@add1>, %X2 UNREACHABLE executed! Stack dump: 0. Running pass 'PowerPC Machine Code Emitter' on function '@foo' Aborted Currently, I use gdb try to track down

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Valery, First response of several. I don't know why the demo page at UIUC is unavailable but there is an enhanced copy of it running on the mirror at http://llvm.x10sys.com/demo/ if you ever need it. Running it produced the following LLVM equivalent for the C code in your example. implementation ; Functions: int %add1(int %x) { entry: %tmp.1 = add int %x, 1 ; <int> [#uses=1]

MSVC++ is picky about this. It considers classes and structs to be different types so you have to be consistent. If you forward declared a struct as a class within the same compilation unit, it would complain about that too. It's not just linking. On Thu, 23 Sep 2004 15:59:42 +0200 Paolo Invernizzi <arathorn at fastwebnet.it> wrote: > Hi all, > > Finally I managed to find

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" > which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows > the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to > do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The

Hi all, Finally I managed to find out a strange problem under Visual C During the link of the HowToUseJIT program, I was always missing some symbols... and I was going crazy testing out different options... At the end, unmangling the differences in what linker was searching and what was present in the libraries, I found that the problem is that we have something like this... Value.h struct

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I

> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, > etc. > > If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful > to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, > and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. It looks like my interface will look vaguely like this. Functions like

On Thu, 12 May 2005, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> llvm_function_new/llvm_value_set_name/llvm_executionengine_run_function, >> etc. >> >> If kept simple, standardized, and generic, I think it would be very useful >> to people (even if incomplete). This would allow others to build on it, >> and we could 'ship' it as a standard llvm library. > > It

On May 26, Reid Spencer wrote: > Alexander, > > Yes, a patch like that would be accepted. Fewer dependencies = good :) > > Some notes on doing this: > > (1) Please make sure you use the std c++ iostream libraries for doing > I/O. No native calls (we end up with portability problems). If you need > something that must be ported, please add it to lib/System Sure. What