similar to: [LLVMdev] bytecode cache

I think the way to do this is to generate a shared library which you reload. Shared libraries already handle the problems of PIC code and relocatable globals, so I think it would be best to leverage that. However, there's obviously some issues here. Presumably you don't have all the code up front, or you wouldn't be using a JIT in the first place. I don't think you can update

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 because windows should support an utf8-locale and windows is obsolete 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 because windows should support an utf8-locale and windows is obsolete 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

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.

On Fri, 26 Nov 2010 09:28:17 -0500 Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy > <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > > No, this post was prompted since I switched to boost::filesystem > > version 3 in my own code and llvm/clang 2.8 > > was the only lib with no unicode support on windows. > > Will your

On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > No, this post was prompted since I switched to boost::filesystem version 3 > in my own code and llvm/clang 2.8 > was the only lib with no unicode support on windows. > Will your code be api compatible to boost::filesystem? No. boost::filesystem makes extensive use of exceptions, which LLVM is

Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> writes: > Is it possible that you add an example how to write a .o with llvm? +1

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. Reid On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 6:45 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de>wrote: > > >> Hi! >

On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > 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 > >

On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 2:10 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > while trying to use llvm::DominatorTreeBase on a custom graph that > has nothing to do with llvm::BasicBlock I ran into some difficulties, > because llvm::DominatorTreeBase calls e.g. getParent()->front() > directly on the nodes and uses llvm::Inverse which forced me to >

Instcombine does of this, late codegen also does some of it. -Chris On May 14, 2010, at 5:58 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > Is there a pass that optimizes vector operations? > If I have for examle a sequence of shufflevector instructions > that optimizes them? > (in opencl notation e.g. a.xyzw.wzyx.xxxx -> a.wwww) > > -Jochen

Can you be more precise about where the error occurs? Depending on where it is, LLVM may or may not be able to propagate the error safely. Reid On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I have this scenario: > executionEngine->getPointerToFunction fails because a symbol can not be > resolved. > > What can I do to

Nope, you'll have to call the system linker. =/ Reid On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > if llvm can generate .so and .dll my bytecode cache problem would be easily > solved by creating shared libs for the target platform and loading them. > > -Jochen > > _______________________________________________ >

2010/11/26 Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de>: > >> Can't you just store filenames as UTF8 (like you do on Linux), and >> convert UTF8 to widechar just when calling the windows APIs? >> Same for converting back directory listings as such, you get widechar, >> and convert back to UTF8. >> All you would need to do is implement that conversion in

Hi! Is it possible to implement a byte code cache for a llvm-jit? This way the compile time occurs only once and the next time the compiled machine code can simply be loaded from disk. Of course care has to be taken with function pointers that are used as constants since they may change on the next run. -Jochen

[please CC the llvm mailing list] Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> writes: >> What's that extra code path? >> > > #ifndef _MSC_VER > ... > #else /* _MSC_VER */ > /* Visual C++ doesn't provide standard integer headers, but it does provide > built-in data types. */ > > ... extra code path ... > > #endif Sorry, that doesn't

On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I'd like to use llvm::cl as it seems quite easy to use, but there > currently seems to be > a major drawback: if I do -help then all options from all llvm libs that > I have included > are shown, but I just have an input file and output file to specify. I've always found

Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> writes: > is it possible to build only the libs (and no executables) with cmake? > I already have LLVM_BUILD_TOOLS:BOOL=OFF > and CLANG_BUILD_EXAMPLES:BOOL=OFF but things like Kaledoscope > are still built. LLVM_BUILD_EXAMPLES=OFF http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars

On 24 February 2011 15:13, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > but I don't see the point of this since %I already does the job > or do I miss something? If you're saying that: > %I = type { i32, i8 }; has size 5, yes, you're missing the alignment. According to the standard, the alignment of a structure is the alignment of its most-aligned member (and

On 24 February 2011 16:27, Jochen Wilhelmy <j.wilhelmy at arcor.de> wrote: > %I = type { i32, i8 }; // 5 bytes > %I' = type { %I, tailpad}; // 8 bytes > %J = type { %I, i8 } // 6 bytes That would break C code (and whatever else relies on alignment). I don't see a way of specifying two structures, but I like the idea of using a packed structure for inheritance and the