similar to: [LLVMdev] jit X86 target compilation callback bug

Hello > We are running llvm jit x86 on MS Visual Studio 2005. It seems there > is a bug in asm code in function X86CompilationCallback in file > X86JITInfo.cpp. Current code sets stack pointer to invalid value in > instruction "and   esp,  16". Depending on current stack pointer value > it sometimes overwrites ecx and edx registers with next three lines. How so? The stack

Hello again. I still think that you are wrong. Realignement with and esp,-16 not always changes stack poiner. If esp is already aligned to 16 byte boundary, it will not change! Take a look at following example. Assume esp has value 0x000001000 at start of X86CompilationCallback function. Then execution of it will yield following esp values: 0x000000FFC - after push ebp 0x000000FFC - after mov

On 02/03/2010 01:08 PM, Kristaps Straupe wrote: > Hello again. > > I still think that you are wrong. Realignement with and esp,-16 not > always changes stack poiner. If esp is already aligned to 16 byte > boundary, it will not change! Take a look at following example. > Assume esp has value 0x000001000 at start of X86CompilationCallback > function. Then execution of it will

Hello, Nathan > or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there > any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect calls? Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not loading address of GOT into ebx before the call (on 32 bit ABIs) thus the call will be to nowhere. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of

Hi all, I've encountered a couple of minor build issues on Solaris that have crept in since 2.5, fixes below: 1. In lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp, there is: // Check if building with -fPIC #if defined(__PIC__) && __PIC__ && defined(__linux__) #define ASMCALLSUFFIX "@PLT" #else #define ASMCALLSUFFIX #endif Which causes a link failure due to the non-PLT

I first sent this to the Clang dev list, but they told me to come here: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> Date: 2010/12/31 Subject: LLVM on Windows MSVC 10 To: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I'm trying to build svn LLVM with Visual Studio 2010: cd build cmake .. -G"NMake Makefiles" nmake and several link steps fail

2010/12/31 Francois Pichet <pichet2000 at gmail.com>: > I don't normally build using nmake.. but I just tried and it worked 100% > here. > Are you sure you are using the trunk? > > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I first sent this to the Clang dev list, but they told me to come here:

OK, fixed the problem with the intrin.h header that doesn't exist in previous versions of VS... -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: JIT.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060126/7e55b0d0/attachment.ksh>

Hi Morten, If you can make the VS2005 project files availiable on the net then I can test them as I have VS2005 now, so then with Chris'es okay then they could be distributed with LLVM. Thanks, Aaron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Morten Ofstad" <morten at hue.no> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 26,

Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> writes: >>> I'm trying to build svn LLVM with Visual Studio 2010: >>> >>> cd build >>> cmake .. -G"NMake Makefiles" >>> nmake >>> >>> and several link steps fail due to a missing symbol: >>> >>> > LLVMX86CodeGen.lib(X86JITInfo.cpp.obj) : error

I don't normally build using nmake.. but I just tried and it worked 100% here. Are you sure you are using the trunk? On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 7:32 AM, Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com>wrote: > I first sent this to the Clang dev list, but they told me to come here: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at

Hello, Following some recent messages about building with Visual Studio 2010, I have gotten most things to compile in release mode on 64b windows 7. (Mainly the few errors with 0 -> nullptr in the second argument of the pair constructor, and making an ECValue constructor public). I'm falling at the last hurdle though when it comes to the final link: 1>------ Build started: Project:

Hi LLVM'ers, I can't figure out why I get this error: -------------------------------------------------- c:/MinGW/bin/../libexec/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/collect2.exe -Bdynamic -o c:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-1-1/Debug/bin/llc.exe /mingw/lib/crt2.o c:/MinGW/bin/../lib/gcc/mingw32/3.4.2/crtbegin.o -Lc:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-1-1/Debug/lib -Lc:/projects/build/MinGW/llvm-1-1/Debug/bin

On 19/08/2009, at 4:00 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Nathan > >> or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there >> any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect >> calls? > Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not Ok, so configure might be the way to go then, maybe something

Interesting. Was this the reason you were getting the recursive compilation error in JIT::runJITOnFunctionUnlocked(...) (isAlreadyCodeGenerating)? Do you have the time to try your test with 2.7? Garrison On Jan 22, 2010, at 17:37, James Williams wrote: > I've worked around this issue in my test case by simply calling my personality function on program to ensure it's JIT'ed

I have a question on the LLVM JIT I did some brief memory reading one day and I found that a call to a non-library function is resolved by the X86CompilationCallback, but the X86CompilationCallback is reached through a trampoline. why can not the generated code jump to the X86CompilationCallback function directly ? 0x2b0a6a4d103b: mov $0x2b0a6a561010,%rax 0x2b0a6a4d1045:

The address of the callee may be more than 2 GB away in memory, which cannot be encoded as an immediate offset in the call instruction. So, the value is first materialized with a mov instruction which can encode the immediate and then jumped to through a register. Reid On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Xin Tong Utoronto <x.tong at utoronto.ca> wrote: > I have a question on the LLVM JIT

I understand that we need to push the address to a register then branch using the register. But i am asking why there is a trampoline there such that a call to foo is first branched to an snippet and the snippet branches to the X86CompilationCallback. is this snippet necessary ? Thanks Xin On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com>wrote: > The

Thanks, now it links. If nobody objects, I will commit the following patch: diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp b/lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp index 44d8cce..8acc220 100644 --- a/lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp +++ b/lib/Target/X86/X86JITInfo.cpp @@ -339,6 +339,8 @@ extern "C" { /// must locate the start of the stub or call site and pass it into the JIT /// compiler function.

what is the proper way to loop through a list in a rails view (assuming that you need to check if it is empty or not) -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to