Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Broken CMake file?"
2015 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] enabling openmp cmake build in llvm tree
Now that the commit of...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
r236534 | achurbanov | 2015-05-05 16:02:52 -0400 (Tue, 05 May 2015) | 13
lines
Integrate libiomp CMake into LLVM CMake build system.
This patch integrates the libiomp CMake build system into the LLVM CMake
build
system so that users can checkout libiomp into the projects directory of
llvm
and
2018 Jan 25
1
[RFC] Handling cmake policies
Currently, cmake policies are manually maintained by each project. This is
done via a set of `cmake_policy()` commands following the initial
`cmake_minimum_required()` command at the top of each CMakeLists.txt
project file.
Somewhat surprisingly, these sets are local to each project and independent
of each other -- even for in-tree builds containing multiple
sub-projects. This
is because cmake
2010 Jan 31
2
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Just updated the source and now I get the unreachable error again.
The JIT doesn't know how to handle a RAUW on a value it has emitted.
UNREACHABLE executed at
/home/conrado/engines/llvm/lib/ExecutionEngine/JIT/JITEmitter.cpp:1542!
I think that it's not helpful now, but I can post the program, if you want
me to.
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Jeffrey Yasskin <jyasskin at
2010 Jan 31
2
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Great! It just worked. I was a bit worried about using pointers to call
functions because it's a little too overwhelming in a big project, I think.
Just for the record, if the function code isn't freed with
freeMachineCodeForFunction, I get a segmentation fault during
recompileAndRelinkFunction with this stack dump:
Running pass 'X86 Machine Code Emitter' on function
2017 Nov 25
2
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
Hi Zachary:
I was able to reproduce the greendragon results locally (OSX), and fix the
problem by excluding 'debuginfo-tests' from check-clang -- this prevents
them from being added twice, once for check-clang and again for
check-debuginfo.
Below are the minimized patches I used to reproduce and fix the problem --
based on your originals.
I've verified these patches work when
2010 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:35 AM, Conrado Miranda
<miranda.conrado at gmail.com> wrote:
> Great! It just worked. I was a bit worried about using pointers to call
> functions because it's a little too overwhelming in a big project, I think.
>
> Just for the record, if the function code isn't freed with
> freeMachineCodeForFunction, I get a segmentation fault during
>
2017 Dec 06
2
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:10 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> Adrian, Mike, Chris? Any update on this? I've temporarily switched to working on something different, but I plan to be back on this in a couple of weeks. It's been a month since my first revert of this CL, which seems like a reasonable amount of lead-time to deal with issues surrounding
2017 Dec 06
3
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
> On Dec 6, 2017, at 10:21 AM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
>
> Can I have some assurance that if it fails again, someone will look into who has access to the builders so I don't have to keep doing speculative commits?
Sure. I did this last time and I promise to also do it this time.
-- adrian
>
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 10:13 AM Adrian Prantl
2010 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Conrado Miranda
<miranda.conrado at gmail.com> wrote:
> Albert Graef wrote:
>>
>> The way I do this in Pure is to always call global functions in an
>> indirect fashion, using an internal global variable which holds the
>> current function pointer. When a function definition gets updated, the
>> Pure interpreter just jits the
2010 Jan 31
3
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Albert Graef wrote:
> The way I do this in Pure is to always call global functions in an
> indirect fashion, using an internal global variable which holds the
> current function pointer. When a function definition gets updated, the
> Pure interpreter just jits the new function, changes the global variable
> accordingly, and frees the old code.
>
> Compared to Duncan's
2014 May 13
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] CMake add_version_info_from_vcs SVN_REPOSITORY
This will be used by Clang to show full build information when
LLVM_APPEND_VC_REV is enabled and LLVM/Clang are built from Git.
Also try to figure-out repository URL and revision from Git mirror parsing
git-svn-id: footer from last commit (if present).
---
cmake/modules/VersionFromVCS.cmake | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git
2010 Feb 01
0
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Hm, I wonder if the error message for llvm_unreachable should change.
I think I remember a couple people focusing incorrectly on the
UNREACHABLE instead of the actual error message above it (which means
it's our fault, not theirs).
Miranda, this is pointing at the same problem you had before. You have
a function JIT-compiled, and you're trying to RAUW
(ReplaceAllUsesWith) it. You'll
2010 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Conrado Miranda wrote:
> To implement something that is common in Lisp. Suppose I have a program
> that is running and can't be stopped or the cost being stoped is
> prohibitive. If I find a better way to run an algorithm, I'd like to
> update the running program non-stopping.
The way I do this in Pure is to always call global functions in an
indirect fashion, using an
2010 Feb 27
1
[LLVMdev] Disassembler status
Hi there.
I've looking libcpu project and some history of the mailing list and got a
question: what is the status of the disassembler? I mean, is there someone
working on it, what targets does it support and so on.
I mean, it would be interesting to be able to "undo" the operations LLVM
does, like machine code->LLVM IR.
If there's no one working with this right now, I'd
2010 Feb 17
1
[LLVMdev] Kaleidoscope toy4 failure seg fault on llvm::ExecutionEngine::getTargetData (this=0x0)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 6:29 AM, Conrado Miranda
<miranda.conrado at gmail.com> wrote:
> First, you have to call llvm-g++ to use the llvm-gcc front end, but it
> doesn't matter here.
I got the compile command from the Kaleidoscope documentation.
> I'd like to suggest that you use pastebin to put your code and the send us
> the link, so that we can download it. The
2010 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Hi Duncan,
> I couldn't find the solution to my problem (if it has one) in the mailing
>> list or the source code. The problem is: how can I redefine a function
>> that's been called already by some other function?
>>
>
> why do you want to do this?
>
To implement something that is common in Lisp. Suppose I have a program that
is running and can't be
2009 Aug 06
1
[LLVMdev] MSVC can't Inlcude *.inc files properly
I means visual studio c++ 2008, do you build clang+llvm with .sln
files, and these files are generated by cmake? I do of that. And
because vs c++ can't recognize path such a:/filepath/.. Properlyn it's
recognized as a:/filepath
So we need change /.. to /../ or /../.
2009/8/6, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org>:
> I don't understand this problem, I have built clang on
2010 Jun 30
3
run R
Hi,
I'm starting use the R Package and I have some .R scripts. How
can I run these .R scripts.
Conrado
2017 Nov 22
2
PSA: debuginfo-tests workflow changing slightly
I sorta enjoy debugging stuff like this, so if you don't mind, I'll dig
into it once I get a chance -- traveling so, my access is a bit sketchy
right now.
I'll see if I can grab the logs and let you know if I find anything
interesting.
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 7:04 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote:
> That change was added specifically to workaround a failure
2010 Jan 30
0
[LLVMdev] Redefining function
Hi Conrado,
> I couldn't find the solution to my problem (if it has one) in the
> mailing list or the source code. The problem is: how can I redefine a
> function that's been called already by some other function?
why do you want to do this?
> Suppose I have 3 files, all compiled to bytecode through llvm-gcc (I
> think it could be clang instead).
>
> File1.c: