similar to: [LLVMdev] Manipulating basic blocks with the C bindings

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 200 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Manipulating basic blocks with the C bindings"

2010 May 27
0
[LLVMdev] Manipulating basic blocks with the C bindings
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that > has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring > out what to do for the case where the label is declared after the > goto, like this: > > goto label; > ... > label: > ... > >
2010 May 28
4
[LLVMdev] Manipulating basic blocks with the C bindings
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >> has a goto statement, similar to C's. I'm having some trouble figuring >> out what to do for the case where the label is
2010 May 28
0
[LLVMdev] Manipulating basic blocks with the C bindings
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 5:47 PM, Evan Shaw <chickencha at gmail.com> wrote: >>> I'm writing a frontend with the LLVM C bindings for a language that >>> has a goto statement, similar to
2012 Apr 25
2
[LLVMdev] Crash in JIT
Hello, [Using LLVM r155315, according to `svn log | head`] I am experimenting with programatically building and jitting functions in a module, and I seem to be coming across a crash in some generated code. Using the llvm-c interface I build up the module which dumps like this: ; ModuleID = 'MyModule' target datalayout = "i686-apple-darwin11" target triple =
2012 Apr 25
0
[LLVMdev] Crash in JIT
Hi David, I'm not certain, but to me the "LLVMSetTarget(module, "i686-apple-darwin11");" line looks suspicious. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of how target triples get handled, but it looks to me like that's requesting 32-bit code. I think that if you omit that line completely then the target will be inferred from the execution environment. My best
2012 Sep 27
0
[LLVMdev] Possible bug or misunderstanding of feature LLVMConstIntOfString
Hi All I am a novice LLVM user trying to use LLVMConstIntOfString using the c api to get a integer of arbitrary size from a hexadecimal string. Example code follows: LLVMContextRef context = LLVMContextCreate(); LLVMValueRef value = LLVMConstIntOfString(LLVMInt64TypeInContext(context), "0x0000000f0000ffff", 16); This is working properly as expected. However I have noticed that
2013 Sep 30
1
[LLVMdev] RFC: llvm-shlib-test (Was: [llvm] r191029 - llvm-c: Make LLVMGetFirstTarget a proper prototype)
Attached is what I got thus far. What I'm struggling with is proper integration in build system. What is in there is just wild guesses from my side, both on autoconf and cmake variants. It would be great if someone with proper knowledge of the buildsystems could have a look. Also I'm not sure how to properly handle compilation on msvc - clearly "-std=c11 -Wstrict-prototypes" is
2011 Jun 18
1
[LLVMdev] loop only executes once
Hello, I'm trying to get to grips with the c interface of llvm intending to eventually develop a front end for Purebasic Though I've hit the wall already writing an iterative Fibonacci function. While I think the module dump looks ok it doesn't work for any input > 2 the function returns 2, the loop only executes once Hopefully someone can see what the problem is from the
2009 Aug 06
0
[LLVMdev] code-altering Passes for llc
On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:45 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > So I was searching for a possibility to include an additional > (Machine)BasicBlock (or rather a MachineFunction?) somewhere in the > program > that contains the program termination and that I can jump to on check > failure. Can't I do that during a Pass in llc? If you just have a magic block of instructions you want to
2009 Aug 06
2
[LLVMdev] code-altering Passes for llc
Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > > Does the error function *have* to be auto-generated in your pass? > Perhaps the original code should use invokes, and your pass insert the > error check with a jne to the "unwind" block. > If I understand correctly, unwind is some kind of exception handling in LLVM IR? I'm not sure if this is the right thing. First, I include runtime
2008 Apr 26
2
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
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 cleaner! Please do say, if there is anything else. Anders Johnsen On Saturday 26 April 2008 22:02:45 Gordon Henriksen wrote: > Hi Anders, > > Thanks for the patch.
2008 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
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 cleaner! > > Please do say, if there is anything else. Nice. Just a few small
2008 Apr 24
2
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
Hi.. Updated so you now set alignment through LLVMInstrSetAlignment. Anders Johnsen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ParamAttr.patch Type: text/x-diff Size: 7420 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080424/cb72b4bb/attachment.patch>
2008 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] llvm-c API and well formed block
How can I find out, in llvm-c API, whether a basic block is well formed? In C++ I could call getTerminator and test for NULL. -- Seo Sanghyeon
2008 Dec 19
0
[LLVMdev] llvm-c API and well formed block
On 2008-12-19, at 09:18, Seo Sanghyeon wrote: > How can I find out, in llvm-c API, whether a basic block is well > formed? In C++ I could call getTerminator and test for NULL. There's not currently a binding for this. In general, there's incomplete support for inspection and analysis through the C bindings. BasicBlock::getTerminator() is just a convenient way to spell for
2010 Aug 12
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM-C: Calling functions contained in other libraries
Hello, I have a question concerning llvm-c. I have set up a function that needs to invoke an external method, in a other library. It has the following signature: void* NSFullUserName(void); The void* can be replaced with a i8*, that far I was able to get, but when my call is invoked, the engine gives me the following message: LLVM ERROR: Tried to execute an unknown external function: i8* ()*
2017 Jan 25
2
mcjit C interface problems
Hi, I'm attempting to use MCJIT with the C interface with llvm-3.9.0, and it doesn't seem to work. This code is derived from Paul Smith's example code: int main(int argc, char const* argv[]) { LLVMModuleRef mod = LLVMModuleCreateWithName("my_module"); LLVMTypeRef param_types[] = {LLVMInt32Type(), LLVMInt32Type()}; LLVMTypeRef ret_type =
2017 Mar 08
2
LLVMGetBitcodeModuleInContext2 problem
I'm trying to use LLVMGetBitcodeModuleInContext2 to load a .bc file. However, it's not working. The code looks something like this: void llvm_load_IR_library(char *path) { LLVMContextRef global_context; LLVMMemoryBufferRef module_path; LLVMModuleRef ir_lib_module; bool flag; module_path = LLVMCreateMemoryBufferWithMemoryRange(path, strlen(path),
2008 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] ParamAttr Patch - Alignment fix
Hi Anders, Thanks for the patch. I'd like you to incorporate some feedback before I apply it, though. > Index: include/llvm/Argument.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Argument.h (revision 50213) > +++ include/llvm/Argument.h (working copy) > @@ -60,7 +60,16 @@ > + > + /// setByValAttr - Set true to give the
2014 May 15
3
[LLVMdev] Finding safe thread suspension points while JIT-ing (was: Add pass run listeners to the pass manager.)
On May 15, 2014, at 9:50 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Given the use case (user mode scheduling), I'm not going to oppose this proposal. I would like to see a couple of things clarified documentation wise: > - When is this interface valid? (i.e. the single thread case) > - If a context does have multiple threads, is this called once per thread? Or