similar to: [LLVMdev] dragonegg and alias attribute

Hi Gregory, I had a similar problem a while back, see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-June/032508.html for my solution to this problem. Basically I ended up linking in the *.o files needed to get exactly what I needed (in your case, the file defining CloneModule and whatever else you need), without pulling in too much (causing duplicate symbol issues with opt). Hopefully this

I thought it would, but it seems to be missing the CloneModule symbol (which isn't called from anywhere in the LLVM codebase). On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I > can load into opt

On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so > that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's > what I have right now: Have you tried removing LINK_COMPONENTS below? I suspect that the opt binary already contains everying in the transformUtils library. -- John T. > >

Hello, I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's what I have right now: LIBRARYNAME=previrt SHARED_LIBRARY=previrt LINK_COMPONENTS := transformUtils LINK_LIBS_IN_SHARED=1 include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.common LIBS += -lprotobuf CPPFLAGS += -I${HOME}/.root/usr/include -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_RTTI LDFLAGS

For my application it is important that I get bit code out the other end and I couldn't get the linux linker to link llvm. Is there a way to do this with other tools? I noticed a TODO in the llvm-link.cpp file that said that this should be done so I figured that that would be the right place to do it. 2011/7/30 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > On

Hello, I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has some problems with append linkage, but so far it has been enough for me. I'd like to

(cc'ing llvm-dev) Hello Gregory, i just recompiled llvm from scratch, and was able to build the ocaml kaleidoscope bindings. Did you know the llvm's build system already can compile the kaleidoscope tutorials for you? You can run this to build them: make BUILD_EXAMPLES=1 Or just cd into the examples directory in your build directory, and run "make" there. Anyway, I think the

Hello, I'm trying to link against an archive that has functions implemented in assembly that are used by my program. When I compile these to LLVM bitcode I get a giant module asm section but no LLVM symbols so when llvm-ld links my program against the library, it doesn't include that file (according to the semantics of static linking). Is there some way to tell LLVM that this file is

Hello, I'm looking at compiling some pieces of the standard library with llvm but I'm running into problems with some functions being renamed by dragonegg. For example, when I compile the acos implementation with plain gcc I get: $ nm acos.o 0000000000000000 r .LC1 0000000000000048 r .LC10 0000000000000050 r .LC11 0000000000000058 r .LC12 0000000000000060 r .LC13 0000000000000068 r .LC14

Hi Duncan, Ah, non-unicode email... In the llvm output there should be a "1" character, i.e. (char) 0x01, prepended to acos and __GI_acos. I'm unable to get it on smaller things, but it happens when I try to compile uClibc with llvm. I've attached the .o and the .bc for comparison. The text file is the result after preprocessing (to avoid having to download a bunch of stuff).

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gregory Malecha <gmalecha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Hello Gregory, > I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and > it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. > Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of > instruction, but there doesn't seem

The Rust compiler defines all functions as returning void, with the first parameter being an outparam of the declared return type, ie. fn foo2() -> int { ret 5; } becomes define void @_ZN4foo217_5cb557d30658848cE(i64*, { i64, { %tydesc*, i1, {} } }*) uwtable { store i64 5, i64* %0 ret void } I'm working on generating debug information for Rust, and I'm currently stumped on how

Hi I have within a quite big function foo1, an internal function foo2. Now, in order to have a cleaner code, I wish to have the internal foo2 as "external". This foo2 was using arguments within the foo1 environment that were not declared as inputs of foo2, which works as long as foo2 is within foo1, but not anymore if foo2 is external, as is the case now. Now, I could add all those

please see the code below. foo2 fails to dispatch correctly, but foo does fine. i have tried 'cacheMetaData(1)' and a number of different variants of 'cacheGenericsMetaData', on the possibility there is a caching issue. but i still can't sort it out. also one general question: does it really matter what's in the body of the function definition in a

Hello! Say I have a function foo1, which has argument ... to pass various arguments to foo2 i.e. foo1 <- function(x, ...) { foo2(x, ...) } Say that foo2 accepts argument arg1 and I would like to do the following: - if foo1 is called as foo1(x) then I would like to assign some value to arg1 inside foo1 before calling foo2 arg1 <- "some value" foo2(x, arg1=arg1) - if foo1 is

Thank you very much for your useful suggestions. These are exactly what I was looking for. foo <- list(foo1, foo2, foo3) lapply(foo, function(x) matrix(unlist(x), nrow = length(x), byrow = TRUE)) or lapply(foo, function(x) do.call('rbind', x)) Best, Muhammad Subianto On 4/11/06, Muhammad Subianto <msubianto at gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > I have a result my experiment

Dear R-devel, I'm trying to validate the results from a C function, against a (trial and tested) older R function. For reasons unknown to me, the C function seems to give different result sometimes at each trial, even with the very same data. These are the relevant outputs from R: > library(QCA) Loading required package: lpSolve > benchmark <- function(x, y) { + index <- 0

Hello, I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of instruction, but there doesn't seem to be any way to query an llvalue and determine what kind of instruction it is. Is there something that I am missing? Thank

Dear all, I have a result my experiment like this below (here my toy example): foo1 <- list() foo1[[1]] <- c(10, 20, 30) foo1[[2]] <- c(11, 21, 31) foo2 <- list() foo2[[1]] <- c(100, 200, 300) foo2[[2]] <- c(110, 210, 310) foo3 <- list() foo3[[1]] <- c(1000, 2000, 3000) foo3[[2]] <- c(1100, 2100, 3100) list(foo1,foo2,foo3) The result: > list(foo1,foo2,foo3) [[1]]

This is a recent R-devel. file.copy() is not vectorized if multiple destinations succeed: cat("foo1\n", file = "foo1") cat("foo2\n", file = "foo2") unlink(c("copy1", "copy2"), recursive = TRUE) file.copy(c("foo1", "foo2"), c("copy1", "copy2"), copy.date = TRUE) #> Error in