similar to: [LLVMdev] ZtW s

Hello server administrator, Continued attempts to use the llvm demo end with Internal Server Error since Saturday. Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus Bremen Laurence R. Earp [cid:420252410 at 22022010-2236] <http://www.bvi.de/> + Erleben Sie Grand Central sowie tradesignal live an unserem Stand 14 + [cid:420252410 at 22022010-223D] Intalus GmbH Wilhelm-Herbst-Str. 7 D-28359 Bremen

Hi, I am using LLVM 2.4 on a Linux RHEL5 machine. I was trying to figure out how the chaining of the alias analysis passes works in LLVM. Here are the command I used to test the chaining part. 1. ./opt hello_world_1_nest_func.bc -o hello_world_1_nest_func_AA.bc -no-aa -anders-aa -licm Result: Anderson's AA and No Alias Analysis both are called. 2. ./opt hello_world_1_nest_func.bc -o

dirac wrote: > Hi, > I am using LLVM 2.4 on a Linux RHEL5 machine. I was trying to figure > out how the chaining of the alias analysis passes works in LLVM. Here > are the command I used to test the chaining part. > 1. ./opt hello_world_1_nest_func.bc -o hello_world_1_nest_func_AA.bc > -no-aa -anders-aa -licm > Result: Anderson's AA and No Alias Analysis both are

[+llvmdev] Rajeshwar Vanka wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Lewycky [mailto:nicholas at mxc.ca] > Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 3:51 PM > To: dirac > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Question regarding the alias analysis chaining > behaviour > > dirac wrote: >> Hi, >> I am using LLVM 2.4 on a Linux RHEL5 machine.

Forgot cc, the entire group. How can deterministically iterate over the uses of a variable. i.e. the uses should be any particular order that doesn't change from execution to execution of the opt tool. To make myself more clearer, here is a snippet of code that has Values reordered each time I analyze a particular piece of code(which doesn't change) with the LLVM opt tool and my LLVM

Hi, Are there any existing patches (or instructions) for eglibc(may be glibc/uclibc) to build it correctly with llvm-gcc? Could you please point to them? I'm cross-compiling eglibc for new processor using llvm-gcc. Build passes, but creates mis-optimized crt* files due to lack of -fno-toplevel-reorder support. Seems there are reasons to skip support of this option in llvm.

Is the rationale that llvm has matured/advanced to the point where integration tests are the only ones to make sense from a test density perspective? On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, > the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that.

I think you need to call "llvm::Function::deleteBody() first" On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 15:49, Reid Kleckner <rnk at mit.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 7:04 AM, Gabi <bugspynet at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi >> I get huge memory leaks using LLVM IRBuilder (trunk version) >> >> Basically I recreate a function over and over again, and pretty sure

I solved that one by substituting alloca into malloc, and forwarded the problem to actually calling the %puts_kernel function via my newly created function pointer. This works: %tmp.1 = call int %puts_kernel() This: %tmp.2 = call int %puts_kernelPTR() issues error: "Reference to an invalid definition: 'puts_kernelPTR' of type 'int () *'" How do I call the function

Yes! :-) What would I do without you folks?! I am the one trying to build a Ruby compiler prototype, so be prepared for more questions...:) Thanks again! Anders ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Function pointers On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Anders

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004, Anders Alexandersson wrote: > Hello out there! > > I am trying to build a table of 2 function poiters by using an array: > > %kernel = alloca [ 2 x int ()* ] > > I try to access the first pointer to be able to store location of my first function like this: > > %function_pointer_1 = getelementptr [2 x int ()* ]* %kernel, long 0, long 0 > >

So, here comes the next question:) Now the program compiles, but crashes when run, "Segmentation fault". %kernel = type { int ()* } int %puts_kernel() { ret int 0 } int %main() { %theKernel = alloca %kernel %puts_kernelPTR = getelementptr %kernel* %theKernel, long 1, ubyte 0 store int ()* %puts_kernel, int ()** %puts_kernelPTR ret int 0 } I want to learn how to

On Sunday 27 April 2008 01:33:31 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 19:09, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > >> On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > >>> +void LLVMSetInstrParamAlignment(LLVMValueRef Instr, unsigned index, > >>> unsigned align) { > >>> + CallSite Call =

OK, I solved it all ( so far :) ), mixing in some load-instructions and called on the result of that, which worked. Here is the skeleton-code: %kernel = type { int ()* } int puts_kernel(){...} ; main() %theKernel = malloc %kernel %puts_kernelPTR = getelementptr %kernel* %theKernel, long 1, ubyte 0 store int ()* %puts_kernel, int ()** %puts_kernelPTR %tmp.11 = load int ()** %puts_kernelPTR

On Sunday 27 April 2008 00:48:00 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > On Apr 26, 2008, at 17:41, Anders Johnsen wrote: > > Hi Gordon, > > > > Thanks a lot for the feedback. I can see I've been way to > > concentrated on how > > llvm is build, then on this particular patch. I've done the changes > > you have > > suggested and it's now a lot nicer and

Hi everyone, I am trying to get up to speed on the MC object file emission for ARM, the first cut being for ELF, and the testing required for that. Obviously, we want the tests for the .o emission to ultimately test the entire .ll -> many llvm passes -> .bc -> .o, but as a first cut, my instinct tells me that a simple .cpp unit tests that directly invokes the MC code to generate (and

Hello out there! I am trying to build a table of 2 function poiters by using an array: %kernel = alloca [ 2 x int ()* ] I try to access the first pointer to be able to store location of my first function like this: %function_pointer_1 = getelementptr [2 x int ()* ]* %kernel, long 0, long 0 store int ()* %function_1, int ()* %function_pointer_1 But, I get the error message from llvm-asm:

On Fri, 2 Apr 2004, Anders Alexandersson wrote: > OK, I solved it all ( so far :) ), mixing in some load-instructions and > called on the result of that, which worked. > > Here is the skeleton-code: > > %kernel = type { int ()* } > > int puts_kernel(){...} > > ; main() > > %theKernel = malloc %kernel > %puts_kernelPTR = getelementptr %kernel* %theKernel,

Hi, Rafael Inlined asm markup inside functions and on the top level is used to split asm prologue/epilogue parts in very fine-grained manner. So, splitting source c won't give the same result. Regards, Sergey Y. 2010/2/22 Rafael Espindola <espindola at google.com> I haven't looked at the code, but why can't you split the .c files > into multiple files instead of splitting

I like the idea, but I find the name confusing; I think it should have `llvm-c` or `c-api` somewhere in the name. This could also serve as a simple example of using the API. -- Sean Silva On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Anders Waldenborg <anders at 0x63.nu> wrote: > Moving this to llvmdev. > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 08:26:41AM +0200, Anders Waldenborg wrote: > > >