similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm custom work developer

Using built-in specs. Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Configured with: ../llvm_gcc/llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9.source/configure -program-prefix=llvm --enable-llvm=/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/llvm-2.9 --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-jit : (reconfigured) ../llvm_gcc/llvm-gcc-4.2-2.9.source/configure -program-prefix=llvm --enable-llvm=/home/ryan/llvm/llvm_core/llvm-2.9 --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-jit

Duncan, Yes, this is the problem. Running "opt -version" returns: me at here:~/llvm/llvm_core/llvm-2.9$ opt -version Low Level Virtual Machine (http://llvm.org/): llvm version 2.8 (Ubuntu 2.8-0ubuntu1) Optimized build. Built Oct 6 2010 (13:24:23). Host: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Host CPU: i686 Registered Targets: (none) So, my question is then how do I do a clean

Is there any way to grab a standard icon for a custom dialog? I have a message box with Wx::ICON_ERROR, and I want to add a check box to it. The only way I know to do this is to create a custom dialog. Then I can use a standard button sizer to get the proper buttons, but I can''t find the error icon. Any hints are appreciated. Thanks! --- Ryan Hinton L-3 Communications / Communication

On 25/09/09 18:05, Tilmann Scheller wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 7:26 AM, Andrew Jeffery<andrew at aj.id.au> wrote: >> TCG seperates the guest (ARM) code into blocks - my front end translates >> these to LLVM IR for LLVM to translate to x86. The assumption is that LLVM >> will produce a better translation than TCG*. At some future point the

Can we also codify when something should be added to the C API? For a lot of folks the C API is the only usable interface. I am one of them. We are not as vocally represented because don't generally give back to the community, usually because we are just consumers of this library. (Or maybe I'm totally wrong and lots of us give back). For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings. On Fri, Jul

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 4:56 AM, Dirkjan Bussink <d.bussink at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello all, > > I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was > recommended to ask it here. > > First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, > http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create > LLVM IR using the C++ API and

Hi all, I'm developing a novel language that has historically used LLVM for code generation, behind a custom self-hosted front-end. The runtime for this language offers a garbage collector. In the past I've been on 32-bit Windows where precise garbage collection is relatively straightforward (as long as FPO is disabled). Walking the stack is a simple bit of pointer chasing and some

For JITs it would appear that there is a patch needed for some kind of relocations. https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24233 Is the patch really needed? What does it do? I'm not an expert here so asking. On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:48 AM, David Majnemer via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 2, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Michael Lewis via llvm-dev >

Hi James, Thanks for your information. Could you suggest any other framework that I could use for making a custom JIT for ARM? I am doing research on JIT compilation for a heterogeneous processor system. Best, Toan Mai On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 3:55 PM, James Molloy <james.molloy at arm.com> wrote: > Hi Toan, > > The JIT for ARM (non-darwin) is completely broken and you should not

Hello all, I've already bothered people on IRC with this question and it was recommended to ask it here. First of all, some context. In Rubinius (http://rubini.us/, http://github.com/rubinius/rubinius) we use LLVM for our JIT. We create LLVM IR using the C++ API and turn that into machine code using ExecutionEngine::runJITOnFunction. The resulting native code is then installed as the

On 07/17/2015 02:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >> c) One of the big things appears to be the push and pull for "A C API for >> all C++ entry points" along with "We don't want to get locked into >> immobility because we have a C API for all C++ entry points". Perhaps part >> of this might be defining an actual stable set of things along with an

Hi Andres, That would be of interest to me too. One thing around this I have been > wondering about is whether it's realistic to merge the optimization and > code generation phases - right now we spend a lot of time re-doing > analyses during codegen that we already had done during optimization. Sounds good to me. I think there are two sub-topics here: (1) JIT specifics. E.g. What

Simon, Ah, thank you! quiet right. For anyone searching for this in the future, I changed my init fuction to: ---------- SNIP ---------------- void init_r() { SEXP aperm_function; /* this is our version of Rf_initEmbeddedR where we disable stack checking */ const char *init_argv[] = {"MyFront", "--vanilla", "--slave"}; Rf_initialize_R(sizeof

Yeah, the JITMemoryManager appears to be owned by the EE and I cannot find a way to get around it. I agree from an API design point of view a custom mgr should be owned by the client code but that is not how it works right now. You probably have to copy out the JIT code into your own block of memory. ________________________________________ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [llvmdev-bounces

LLVM Compiler Infrastructure -- Release 1.0 http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu (*) We are pleased to announce the public release of the LLVM Compiler Infrastructure under a non-restrictive open source license. WHAT IS LLVM? LLVM is a new infrastructure designed for compile-time, link-time, runtime, and "idle-time" optimization of programs from arbitrary programming

Hi All, I've listed the current topics of interest below, along with some notes on each. We only have 30 minutes so we'll barely scratch the surface of these during the BoF itself. My main aims are for you to meet each other, identify potential areas of collaboration, identify things that I can do to unblock you, and get the ball rolling on some conversations that we can continue on the

Hi everyone, Here's an update on what we've been up to and how the LLVM 1.0 release is shaping up. Overall, things are going well, and it looks highly likely that we'll get the release out by the end of the month! Here's the hilights of the last few weeks: 1. John checked in support for building LLVM into multiple different object directories in the Autoconf style. He also

> Thanks for your information.  > Could you suggest any other framework that I could use for making a custom JIT > for ARM? > I am doing research on JIT compilation for a heterogeneous processor system. If not for heterogeneous system, I would suggest QEMU. :) Why not try to fix it? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science,

Hi, I am receiving an LLVM Error from a custom 16-bit backend I am creating. I am having trouble understanding the error/problem and how to go about solving it. The error is: LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: t29: i32,ch = load<LD2[%x.addr], anyext from i16> t14, FrameIndex:i16<0>, undef:i16 t7: i16 = FrameIndex<0> t9: i16 = undef In function: mul_add Can anyone provide any

Could you tell me the current status of MIPS JIT? On Mon, Apr 30, 2012 at 11:38 PM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > Thanks for your information. > > Could you suggest any other framework that I could use for making a > custom JIT > > for ARM? > > I am doing research on JIT compilation for a heterogeneous processor > system. > > If not for