similar to: [LLVMdev] construction of ExecutionEngine without module

Hi! I have this scenario: executionEngine->getPointerToFunction fails because a symbol can not be resolved. What can I do to catch this error? is an exception thrown? currently the program simply exits. returning NULL would be ok too. -Jochen

Hi! at first i create an execution engine on a module (llvm::ExecutionEngine::create(module)). 1) is it allowed to modify the module, e.g. add a function? 2) is it allowed to construct a linker on this module, link something in, call linker.releaseModule() and destruct the linker again? -Jochen

Another question: Lang, when do you think it'll be ok to move it to the C Bindings? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > I agree. ExecutionEngine, in its current form, is unhelpful. I'd be in > favor of cutting the common interface back to something like: > > class ExecutionEngine { > public: > virtual

Hi! > sin/cos etc should already be handled by lib/Analysis/ConstantFolding.cpp. > Thanks for the hint and it works! Now I have a new Problem: I have this function: float foo(float a, float b) { float x = a * b * 0.0f; return cos(0.5) * sin(0.5) * x; }; after compiling it with clang (cpp mode) and renaming _ZSt3sinf to sin and _ZSt3cosf to cos I get the following: define

Hi! Of course nobody wants to implement unicode support for windows because windows should support an utf8-locale and windows is obsolete anyway ;-) But there is a simple solution: use boost::filesystem::path everywhere you use file names and paths, for example in clang::FileManager::getFile. With version 3 opening a file is easy: std::fstream file(path.c_str()). Internally

Hi, I think ExecutionEngine as a common interface for both Interpreter and MCJIT is almost useless in the current form. There are separated methods in ExecutionEngine for similar or the same features provided by Interpreter and MCJIT, i.e. to get a pointer to function you should call getPointerToFunction() for Interpreter or getFunctionAddress() for MCJIT. Personally, I'm using MCJIT and

On 25.11.2010 23:56, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Nov 25, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de > <mailto:j.wilhelmy at arcor.de>> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Of course nobody wants to implement unicode support for windows >> because windows should support an utf8-locale and windows is obsolete >> anyway ;-) >> >> But

On Nov 25, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > Of course nobody wants to implement unicode support for windows > because windows should support an utf8-locale and windows is obsolete > anyway ;-) > > But there is a simple solution: use boost::filesystem::path everywhere you > use file names and paths, for example in

Now I have -DLLVM_INCLUDE_EXAMPLES:BOOL=OFF but Kaleidoscope is still there and selected for build (-G "Visual Studio 9 2008") -Jochen

Hi! Is it possible that you add an example how to write a .o with llvm? Just like examples/ModuleMaker but instead of printing to stdout writing a .o file as starting point for the new MC functionality. -Jochen

Hi! In DataTypes.h (generated from DataTypes.cmake) there is an extra code path for Visual C. This can produce macro redefinitions for INT8_MAX, INT8_MIN etc. since other headers may also define them. Therefore please protect the macros like INT8_C etc. Also it would be nice if the auto-generated HAVE_STDINT_H and HAVE_INTTYPES_H would be used also for Visual C since it is possible to add them

On 3 March 2010 11:56, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > > the sin and cos calls are folded, but not the mul by zero. > Is x*0 => 0 true if isnan(x)? And cos(x)*sin(x) makes me desperately want to fold it to sin(2*x)/2, but I suppose that's not allowed either.

>> Hi! >> >> before InstCombine (llvm::createInstructionCombiningPass()) I have >> a trunc from i8 to i1 and then a select: >> >> %45 = load i8* @myGlobal, align 1 >> %tobool = trunc i8 %45 to i1 >> %cond = select i1 %tobool, float 1.000000e+00, float -1.000000e+00 >> >> after instCombine I have: >> >> %29 = load i8*

Am 29.12.2011 19:52, schrieb Reid Kleckner: > I think Chris is saying that the and is necessary because with your i1 > trunc you're ignoring all of the high bits. The and implements that. > If you don't want this behavior, don't generate the trunc in the > first place and just compare the full width to zero. But if a backend sees trunc from i8 to i1 it should know

I agree that this would be useful. One minor stumbling block is that the EngineBuilder uses the supplied Module to determine the target triple when creating the TargetMachine. Obviously that could be handled with different EngineBuilder usage (the API may even already be there for that). It's just something to consider. -Andy From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent:

Hi! In the llvm-doc is the following: Also, since many platforms define their ABIs in terms of C, and since LLVM is lower-level than C, front-ends currently must emit platform-specific IR in order to have the result conform to the platform ABI. Can you give an example for this except system calls (which e.g. on windows use a different calling convention)? If you write your own operating

Hi! when compiling projects using llvm 2.9 and ms vc 10 I get these warnings: 1>e:\Jochen\Lib\lib\include\llvm/Use.h(218): warning C4624: 'llvm::AugmentedUse' : destructor could not be generated because a base class destructor is inaccessible 1>C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Visual Studio 10.0\VC\include\stdint.h(72): warning C4005: 'INT8_MIN' : macro redefinition

Hi Andy, I added the runStaticConstructorsDestructors and FindFunctionNamed functions. This also required making them virtual in EE.h. I'm not sure about FindFunctionNamed: In addition to searching finalized modules, should it search Added and Loaded modules? If it finds a Function in these, should it compile and finalize it before returning the Function* ? I modified the implementation

Hello Jochen- Your expectation is incorrect, I'm afraid. Typically this would be expanded to something like this: … %cmp = … br i1 %cmp, label %ternary.true, label %ternary.false ternary.true: %truevalue = … br label %ternary.end ternary.false: %falsevalue = … br label %ternary.end ternary.end: %value = phi %type [%truevalue, %ternary.true], [%falsevalue,

Hi! I have a llvm::Module that references an external function and a second mdoule that implements the function. The implementation consists of only one instruction. How can I explicitly inline this function? -Jochen