similar to: [LLVMdev] Is llvm correct outputting the same data layout on Solaris i386 as on Linux i386 ?

> Is Solaris ABI really the same on i386? Probably not. Also, note that the problem is not ABI alone, the layouts of different C stdlib structs might be different (e.g. FILE), etc. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

On 02/02/2011 12:40, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> Is Solaris ABI really the same on i386? >> > Probably not. Also, note that the problem is not ABI alone, the > layouts of different C stdlib structs might be different (e.g. FILE), > etc. > > So how do I figure out what is the correct layout string would be on Solaris-i386? stdlib structures? This depends on

I am running Windows program MegaContacts.exe (from inside http://rapidshare.com/files/35238313/spravochnik_belarus.rar) It runs ok under wine-1.1.11 on FreeBSD but displays question marks instead of all Cyrillic letters. How to fix this? I am almost 100% sure that it would just fine under real Windows but didn't try it due to the lack of Windows. Thanks, Yuri

On 02/02/2011 19:53, Lally Singh wrote: > To answer my own question. The problem is that Solaris ships with > very old tools, and llvmc was generating assembler that worked with a > fresh (gcc-4.5) compile& install. I had them handy, just further > down the path. Hopefully anyone with the same problem can find this > in the archive. > I think llvm isn't ported to

I have followed http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html, used the latest release gdb-7.1 (from March 18, 2010) and got this stack: (gdb) bt #0 0x35532156 in ?? () #1 0x355320f8 in ?? () #2 0x35532098 in ?? () #3 0x3553202e in ?? () #4 0x34a5661a in ?? () #5 0x349d9bd9 in ?? () #6 0x08052cd9 in main (argc=4, argv=0xbfbfe264, envp=0xbfbfe278) at

When I try running simple example with exceptions through JIT I get this output: terminate called after throwing an instance of 'E*' Why exceptions don't work in JIT and what it takes to make them work? Yuri --- e.C --- #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> class E { }; void xmain() { try { throw new E; } catch (E *e) { printf("caught!\n");

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 just switched gcc from 4.6.2 to 4.7.1 and see the massive amount of warnings, see few examples below. They mostly didn't exist with gcc-4.6.2. rev.159224 Yuri /usr/home/yuri/llvm-2012-06/latest-unpatched/llvm-fix/include/llvm/ADT/PointerUnion.h:56:10: warning: enumeral mismatch in conditional expression:

Hi, as you come to speak of it, i have implemented an OpenCL-Backend for LLVM as part of my bachelor thesis (and for GLSlang as well, see http://www.cdl.uni-saarland.de/publications/theses/moll_bsc.pdf ). However, the code is currently unreleased. But that could be arranged, if you are interested in using it. Regards, Simon Am Freitag, den 26.08.2011, 20:11 -0500 schrieb llvmdev-request at

----- 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'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

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

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

Have you found http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html? The JIT already has support for something like this for gdb's benefit. Perftools and valgrind just don't know how to find it yet. On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 2:03 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > This new option (--jit-emit-debug-function-range) will allow to output > function information for memory ranges that

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

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

I am getting such message: llvm[3]: Linking Release Loadable Module LLVMHello.so /opt/local/bin/ld: anonymous version tag cannot be combined with other version tags collect2: ld returned 1 exit status ld version is 2.21 (GNU) What might be a problem? Yuri

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

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