similar to: [LLVMdev] [patch] Please apply this minor patch: it makes an error message about unterminated BB more detailed

Please look at the fragment of the hex dump of LLVM-created ELF showing the beginning and end of .eh_frame: .eh_frame begin 000297a0 14 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 01 7a 52 00 01 78 10 01 |.........zR..x..| 000297b0 1b 0c 07 08 90 01 00 00 18 00 00 00 1c 00 00 00 |................| <...skipped...> 0002cb00 00 00 00 00 0b 01 00 00 00 41 0e 10 86 02 43 0d |.........A....C.| 0002cb10 06 42

> The problem with this is that __register_frame function (in libgcc_s.so), > registering .eh_frame with an exception handler, only takes the pointer to > .eh_frame, and not the size of data, and should be able to detect the end of > data by scanning it and hitting zero DWORD (size). There is no trailing > zero, and it runs into the next section and tries to interpret it as an >

On 04/30/2013 11:53, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Are you trying MCJIT?:-) No. > > I first tried to compensate for that in MCJIT by adding those 4 bytes. > That works for Linux, but not for OS X where __register_frame takes a > single FDE at a time. I have an incomplete wip patch if you are > interested. On BSD __register_frame also takes a single argument and therefore needs

On 10/02/2012 13:01, Duncan Sands wrote: > > I think Chris is the right person to look at this, hopefully he will. Now 5 months passed. I updated the patch for this current revision. Can anybody review this and check in please? http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13163 Yuri

In r134967 it still worked, and in r137742 it now doesn't. I used such flags: --enable-assertions --enable-shared --enable-libffi --enable-debug-runtime --enable-debug-symbols --disable-optimized Before build would create directory tools/llvm-shlib under the build tree. Now it is missing. Yuri

This function (understandably) takes quite a long time, because it has to go through each function in module and write its binary. But it probably can be parallelized if different threads would write binaries separately, and then merge them together. Is this implemented or planned? Yuri

On 02/02/2014 01:48, David Chisnall wrote: > In most calling conventions, this is a callee-save register. After its last use, the register allocator may reuse that register. On x86 and ARM, the register that contains this is also (usually) the register used for But the rule "after the last use, the register allocator may reuse it" is also introduced by llvm, since register

Yuri, on which host? 2011/8/17 Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com>: > In r134967 it still worked, and in r137742 it now doesn't. > I used such flags: --enable-assertions --enable-shared --enable-libffi > --enable-debug-runtime --enable-debug-symbols --disable-optimized > > Before build would create directory tools/llvm-shlib under the build > tree. Now it is missing. In my

On Apr 17, 2013, at 7:26 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > On 10/02/2012 13:01, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> I think Chris is the right person to look at this, hopefully he will. > > Now 5 months passed. I updated the patch for this current revision. > Can anybody review this and check in please? > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13163 >

I did these steps: * checked out llvm trunk, and clang trunk * created symbolic link llvm/tools/clang * created separate folder: llvm-objects * run configure and gmake in llvm-objects It builds ok until it hits clang, at which point I get an this error: gmake[2]: Entering directory `/tmp/llvm-svn/llvm-objects/tools/clang' Makefile:44: Makefile.config: No such file or directory Makefile:127:

How can I copy the value from another BB? PHI instruction with one argument would fit, but it requires that all arguments are in immediately preceding BBs. Yuri

I've built clang+llvm in an object directory successfully, and I'm sure others have. I'd guess the problem is the symlink, so I'd give it a shot without it. Reid On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 7:43 AM, Diego Iastrubni <diegoiast at gmail.com> wrote: > can you tell what commands exactly did you use? > > What I usually do is: > > svn co llvm... > mkdir

----- Original Message ---- > From: Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > To: Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Sun, February 20, 2011 3:26:35 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Announcing: LLVM 2.9 Tentative Release Schedule > > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > > > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > >>

I think my patch fell through the cracks: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13163 Could anybody please check it in? Thanks, Yuri

can you tell what commands exactly did you use? What I usually do is: svn co llvm... mkdir llvm/tools/clang svn co llvm/tools/clang mkdir cmake-build cd cmake-build cmake ../ make Try something similar by running "../configure", it should work. On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:23 AM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > I did these steps: > * checked out llvm trunk, and clang

I am trying to create such module with API (it's equivalent to c++: const char* ss[] = {"s1","s2"};): @ss = global [2 x i8*] [i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0), i8* getelementptr inbounds ([3 x i8]* @.str2, i32 0, i32 0)] ; <[2 x i8*]*> [#uses=0] @.str1 = private constant [3 x i8] c"s1\00", align 1 ; <[3 x i8]*> [#uses=1]

On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: > Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9?

Here is what I did: I took c.C (attached), compiled it into my.ll code with command 'clang++ -O3 -fexceptions -emit-llvm -S -o my.ll c.C' and added tracing command on every line, see attached my.ll Running my.ll in interpreter with this command 'llvm-as my.ll && lli -jit-enable-eh my.bc', I get this log: TRACE num=20 TRACE num=22 TRACE num=27 TRACE num=29 TRACE num=31

On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > On 02/18/2014 00:44, 杨勇勇 wrote: > >> I ported llvm backend and lldb recently. Both tools can basically work. >> lldb is able to debug programs in asm style and frame unwinding is OK. >> >> But "frame variable XX" does not work because lldb is not able to >> determine >> the

On Feb 19, 2011, at 8:05 PM, Yuri wrote: > On 02/19/2011 14:52, Yuri wrote: >> Will MC path for JNI be included in 2.9? >> > > Sorry. I meant: Will MC path for JIT be included in 2.9? While it would be nice, it doesn't seem like anyone is working on it at the moment. -Chris