similar to: [LLVMdev] From OS X to LINUX

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] From OS X to LINUX"

2010 Jan 10
0
[LLVMdev] From OS X to LINUX
On 01/10/2010 03:09 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > For close to the last decade or so, I've been developing on OS X and then porting to LINUX. I know there are those who object > to this approach, but it works for me. However I noticed that when porting my exception example to LINUX, which involved > adding a whopping -rdynamic to the build line, there were technologies missing from my
2010 Dec 14
2
[LLVMdev] OS X ffi in config.h
While browsing the configure generated llvm/Config/config.h, I'm noticed that the macros: HAVE_FFI_CALL HAVE_FFI_FFI_H HAVE_FFI_H are not defined on OS X (currently 10.6.5). Given that ffi exists on this platform (both headers and lib), is this result intended? Thanks Garrison
2010 Mar 22
2
[LLVMdev] r98459 break of ExceptionDemo
Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) The patch is offset from HEAD. The patch is a hack which removes use of the MCSymbol::isDefined(...) method, as its use happens to break in the exception JIT context; both in
2010 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] r98459 break of ExceptionDemo
Hi Garrison, Does r101453 fix this? -Chris On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant > to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) > The patch is offset from HEAD. > > The patch is a hack which
2010 Mar 18
0
[LLVMdev] r98459 break of ExceptionDemo
Forgot to add platform with issue: OS X 10.6.2. I have not tested elsewhere. Garrison On Mar 18, 2010, at 14:20, Garrison Venn wrote: > Hi Chris, > > The MCSymbol r98459 patch of llvm seems to have broken the ExceptionDemo example. As the example is dying in the > associated personality's first unwind search phase, which happens to have no language specific context, and is
2010 Mar 18
2
[LLVMdev] r98459 break of ExceptionDemo
Hi Chris, The MCSymbol r98459 patch of llvm seems to have broken the ExceptionDemo example. As the example is dying in the associated personality's first unwind search phase, which happens to have no language specific context, and is returning a _URC_CONTINUE_UNWIND, I believe the issue is generic and not specific to the example. However I'm not sure why then this wasn't seen in one
2010 Feb 01
3
[LLVMdev] Equivalent alignment of __attribute__((__aligned__))
Is there a way using llvm::TargetData to determine the alignment of what would be equivalent to __attribute__((__aligned__))? I'm looking for something like a max alignment number for the target platform so that I know what the max alignment of an address returned by malloc(...) will be. Thanks in advance Garrison
2010 Jan 22
0
[LLVMdev] Exception handling question
Hey Duncan, Yup, you are correct. Just tested to make sure. Invoking _Unwind_RaiseException(...) directly still sets up personality function (and calls it during exception search/cleanup), in corresponding frame headers for frame containing invoke. Well ... ok, at least in a JIT execution environment. :-) I thought maybe __gcc_personality_v0(...) was being called instead. However, I also just
2010 Dec 14
0
[LLVMdev] OS X ffi in config.h
Ah, --enable-libffi. Any pointers as why this is not a default check for at least UNIX systems? Does Windows have the equivalent? Thanks in advance Garrison On Dec 14, 2010, at 6:34, Garrison Venn wrote: > While browsing the configure generated llvm/Config/config.h, I'm noticed that > the macros: > > HAVE_FFI_CALL > HAVE_FFI_FFI_H > HAVE_FFI_H > > are not
2009 Dec 25
1
[LLVMdev] JIT buffer code skipping 8 bytes?
On OS X (10.6.2) running on an Intel Core 2 duo with LLVM 2.7 pulled about a month ago from CVS and built in debug mode: Using the JIT system with exception handling, I am having issues with type infos. "Finally" code (llvm.eh.selector intrinsic call with 0) works fine (correct landing pads found), as does this call with one type info. My type infos are each 64 bit array GlobalVariables
2010 Jan 22
4
[LLVMdev] Exception handling question
Hi Garrison, > %7 = invoke i8* (...)* bitcast (i32 (%struct._Unwind_Exception*)* > @_Unwind_RaiseException to i8* (...)*)(i64* %6) > to label %8 unwind label %.finally_pad ; <i8*> [#uses=0] > > I am not sure this is going to work, at least from the way I've played > with the system. > In my examples the _Unwind_RaiseException(...) is called from a
2007 Dec 06
1
tick_divider
Just installed CentOS 5.1 on VMware ESX and am attempting to play with the newly added tick_divider feature. It doesn't seem to be making any difference in the number of timer interrupts though. I set tick_divider=10 which should reduce the number of timer interrupts to 100. I wrote a nasty little scripts that queries /proc/interrupts every 1 second and still see an increase each second in
2011 Jul 11
2
[LLVMdev] type-system-rewrite branch landing tomorrow
Sorry, these IRBuilder methods are really in IRBuilderBase. Garrison On Jul 11, 2011, at 11:54, Garrison Venn wrote: > Are the get type methods for IRBuilder, such as const IntegerType *getInt32Ty(), going to have > their return type const qualifiers removed? Doing so would match the semi equivalent static > methods of Type, such as static IntegerType *getInt32Ty(LLVMContext &C).
2010 Dec 10
2
[LLVMdev] tblgen internals
Ok thanks I'll try that. I was trying to avoid re-building llvm-gcc. Garrison On Dec 10, 2010, at 12:12, Bob Wilson wrote: > > On Dec 10, 2010, at 6:11 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > >> Hey Chris, >> >> Ok, so I'm working on creating this trivial patch, for starters, but I'm trying to identify >> a controlled unit test for tblgen. So all of the
2009 Dec 07
3
[LLVMdev] Documentation of malloc/free
So I gather this means that malloc was removed from the IR because there are platforms that don't have non-stack allocation semantics? Garrison On Dec 7, 2009, at 12:21, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 7, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > >> Ouch! Didn't see that. So at the risk of irritating those still in the process of baking 2.7, what is the sanction way of
2007 Apr 12
1
bonding
I four nodes setup to do active-backup bonding and the drivers loaded for the bonded network interfaces vary between tg3 and e100. All interfaces with the e100 driver loaded report errors much like what you see here: bonding: bond0: link status definitely down for interface eth2, disabling it e100: eth2: e100_watchdog: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex bonding: bond0: link status definitely up for
2011 Jul 25
4
[LLVMdev] Lack of use of LLVMContextImpl::NamedStructTypes
Several people on this list have reported issues with the linker regarding a named StructType instance with the same name in two different modules being resolved into two StructTypes with different names due to StructType:: setName(…) collision behavior. Looking at BitcodeReader::ParseTypeTableBody(…), I don't see use of LLVMContextImpl::NamedStructTypes or of Module::getTypeByName(…). Nor do
2010 Jan 22
3
[LLVMdev] Exception handling question
I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed before any unwind happens. -- James 2010/1/22 Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> > No, there is no magic. :-) > > To me though, the tools are magic, because I have no clue what they are > doing without looking at them and using them. >
2010 Jan 10
3
[LLVMdev] Using a function from another module
On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Won't passing llvm::Function* around vs strings (function names), also work, at code generation time, > without the need for a module A dec to module B impl. mapping? > > Garrison Nope. You cannot place a call instruction into one module whose callee is a Function from another module. You
2010 Dec 13
4
[LLVMdev] tblgen internals
Hi Chris, Thanks for the review! I believe I caught most of the syntax style issues with the attached patch. It only contains these style changes. On Dec 12, 2010, at 19:30, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > >> >> Hey Chris, >> >> The following patch removes all global references to a RecordKeeper instance for the