similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM memory usage?

On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 6:53 PM, James Williams <junk at giantblob.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm seeing rather high memory usage from LLVM and I'd like to track down > what I'm doing to cause it. My application is a simple web application > server that compiles web pages with embedded script to bitcode and compiles > them with the JIT on demand. I've taken

I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. What is the preferred way to inject a llvm:Function which contains basic blocks into the Module + JIT? My understanding (perhaps

On Jul 4, 2009, at 5:59 AM, Carter Cheng wrote: > I have tracing the calls to materializeFunction in the LLVM code in > hopes of determining how to properly utilize this function but from > my explorations I gather it's just a hook which is called by the JIT > system and I would mostly have to do the work myself. ModuleProvider is a very simple concept. You can either load

Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached

I noticed that the ocaml compilation isn't using the .opt executables if they're available. We might gain a slight optimization in ocaml compile time by optionally using them with this patch. --- autoconf/configure.ac | 18 +++++ configure | 195 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ 2 files changed, 188 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) -------------- next part

--- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.ml | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm.mli | 2 +- bindings/ocaml/llvm/llvm_ocaml.c | 2 +- include/llvm-c/Core.h | 32 +++++++++++++++++++------------- 4 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 316a84e85ed2363551149e65a227c8e7c8192624.diff Type:

Hello, with the latest LLVM (almost 2.0 CVS) what is the right way to read a module from a byte array fetched from a database? I thought that I could subclass llbm::module to add my own fields (typically, a MySQL id number) and then parse it as bitcode, but I am stuck, since apparently the only way to parse bitcode is to use a BitcodeReader then calling materializeModule gives a fresh llvm

Hey there, I'm relatively new to the llvm scene, and so far I'm liking it quite a bit. I'm a bit perplexed as to what llvm-gcc's role is in everything. I've used it to create .bc files for really simple functions and it seems to do quite well at that, but I've been trying to figure out how to take the output from llvm-gcc and actually use it in another program.

> 6. When ExecutionEngine::create was called with parameter > "GVsWithCode" set to its default value of true, I got a segfault when > trying to get a pointer to one of my globals.  JIT::getMemoryForGV was > returning NULL in that case.  Explicitly passing false for > "GVsWithCode" cleared it up. That's no good. Could you send me a stack trace and explain

I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not cause this assert. LLVM version 3.4svn DEBUG build with assertions. Built Jul 14 2013 (15:39:08). Default target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Host CPU: amdfam10 I have attached the input bc file before -O3 optimization :bzip2.del.bc.tgz I have attached

Hi Hal, I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Milind, > > Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? > > -Hal > > ----- Original Message ----- >> I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode

Hi Danny, On 2007-12-26, at 15:39, Danny wrote: > I've noticed that the BitcodeReader appears to be an internal > module, but the BitstreamReader is public. Should I be using the > BitstreamReader? If so how. The generic BitstreamReader class is public because it's used in other projects, including clang, to serialize data structures other than LLVM IR. The coding of

That worked quite well. Thank you. One question as a follow up: is there a nice/standard way of including the pre-made bitcode chunks in with the binaries that are being created which read them? Bascially, I'd like to have the same functionality, but rather than having one or more .bc files running around which need to be read at runtime by an executable, moving that into the code

Milind, Have you filed a bug on this? If not, can you please open a bug report (http://llvm.org/bugs)? -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > I am hitting an LLVM assertion from the llc tool iff the bitcode file > is optimized at -O3 level by opt). -O1 and -O2 levels of opt do not > cause this assert. > > LLVM version 3.4svn > DEBUG build with assertions. > Built Jul 14

Hello, This is probably a bit of a beginner's question but I am new to LLVM I have been examining the possibility of constructing something similar to the JnJVM for a language which supports dynamic class loading. The problem I am having is determining how the JIT system allows for dynamic loading of functions into the JIT. The paper indicates the JnJVM use some sort of callback when the JIT

Thanks for the reply. I actually managed to resolve this problem mostly to my satisfaction. I suspect based on your description of materializeFunction I may be best served by subclassing the ModuleProvider to do what I want. Thanks again. --- On Mon, 7/6/09, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev]

I have this code, which works fine on MacOS and Linux hosts: const char *target_specific_cpu_args; const char *target_specific_features; if (g->is_native_target) { target_specific_cpu_args = ZigLLVMGetHostCPUName(); target_specific_features = ZigLLVMGetNativeFeatures(); } else { target_specific_cpu_args = ""; target_specific_features =

Hi, I don't see the LLVM bug I filed (http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780) making any progress. Can someone suggest me whether the bug is in the correct state? -Milind On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Milind Chabbi <Milind.Chabbi at rice.edu> wrote: > Hi Hal, > > I have filed http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16780 > > -Milind > > On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at

Hi Carter, Carter Cheng wrote: > Hello, > > This is probably a bit of a beginner's question but I am new to LLVM > I have been examining the possibility of constructing something similar to the JnJVM for a language which supports dynamic class loading. The problem I am having is determining how the JIT system allows for dynamic loading of functions into the JIT. The paper

Hi everyone, I have some problems with gettings the X86_thiscall calling convention to work. I am new to LLVM, so if this is the wrong place for this question then I appologise, please tell me where to go instead. I am generating code to call a member function of a class compiled with Microsoft Visual C++ using the JIT compiler. The following code is used to register the pointer to the