similar to: [LLVMdev] Merging Modules

Hi Paul, On Sep 8, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Redmond, Paul wrote: > Hi, > > Can anyone point me to some code (or offer advice) on how I can merge one Module into another? > > I have a list of Modules each containing one Function. I would like to combine them all into one monolithic Module before transforming and optimizing (The original Modules must remain unmodified) > See

On 8 September 2011 10:57, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Sep 8, 2011, at 10:52 AM, Redmond, Paul wrote: > > Hi,**** > ** ** > Can anyone point me to some code (or offer advice) on how I can merge one > Module into another?**** > ** ** > I have a list of Modules each containing one Function. I would like to > combine them all

On 14 July 2016 at 20:07, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Pierre Gagelin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to use the CloneFunction from llvm/Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h > and I don't understand how the ValueToValueMapTy argument should be > initialized. For instance,

Hi, I am trying to use the CloneFunction from llvm/Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h and I don't understand how the ValueToValueMapTy argument should be initialized. For instance, let say I want to clone this function (to add an argument): define void @function(i32 %i) #0 { entry: %i.addr = alloca i32, align 4 store i32 %i, i32* %i.addr, align 4 ret void } to another function which should,

Hi, I want to execute functions in a module, this module will have dependencies resolved in other modules. the modules might change (dynamic compilation environment) so i would prefer not not link all the dependencies in a single monolithic module, that is, if it can be avoided I hope to use Linker::linkModules but this is always destructive. That is ok for one module depending on a single one,

The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces. As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage, so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please flag me down. I'll follow up soon with

Hi Charllls, I didn't really get it. Are you saying that you would execute some functions using the JIT then, later, those functions will be modified and thus need to be re-jitted? Ciao, Duncan. On 07/06/12 20:13, Charllls Alquarra wrote: > > Sorry if it comes out a bit pushy bumping my own question, but it's been really > difficult to find any info regarding this functionality

Sorry if it comes out a bit pushy bumping my own question, but it's been really difficult to find any info regarding this functionality in the mailing list archives. Just some emails i've found from people working on NaCl: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-December/046055.html  is there a branch where this is being work on, or is internal chromium project so far? Also

Hi Philip, Thank you very much for your answer, the vector declaration example worked. I'm pretty sure the ValueToValueMapTy is the last thing I need because I even saw there is another function that could help me llvm*:*:RemapFunction <http://llvm.org/doxygen/namespacellvm.html#addf0183e92893bdbcde00fc9091dda93>; but my problem is that I don't know how to populate the

Hello LLVM Developers, I'm trying to replace a function defined in one module into another module (different files). The first issue I ran into was that llvm::Function does not have a method "moveBefore" or "moveAfter" as the llvm::BasicBlock or llvm::Instruction do, so I figured I would just move the BasicBlocks of the replacing function into the function that was being

Hi, I found that http://llvm.org/doxygen seems to be out-of-date. The footer shows that the files are regenerated everyday. I guess that the input repository for doxygen has not been updated for a while. For example, http://llvm.org/doxygen/namespacellvm.html#adeb6bbe8b1bed333ee7608e1939153c0 It says llvm::ParseBitcodeFile() has following prototype: Module *ParseBitcodeFile(MemoryBuffer

Hi Philip, Thanks for the reference, I was able to follow it and copy the code that I saw necessary, but I still have some issues (references are still not updated). I created the function: void populateVMap(llvm::ValueToValueMapTy &VMap, llvm::Function *fOld, llvm::Function *fNew) { llvm::Function::arg_iterator DestI = fOld->arg_begin(); for (llvm::Function::const_arg_iterator J =

> On 2015-Jun-01, at 11:06, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > I'm pretty sure module linking is expected to occur in the same LLVM context. Correct. > IIRC Duncan had some proposal for how ld64 could do something clever with multiple contexts, but I've totally forgotten what it was. This was for LTO (probably unrelated to Yuri's scenario?). 1.

Thank you Ahmad, I figured out that, although the type of both p(oInst) and p(nInst) were the same, I had to: for (unsigned int i = 0; i < callOInst->getNumArgOperands(); i++) { callOInst->getArgOperand(i)->mutateType(callNInst->getArgOperand(i)->getType()); } that solves the issue at the calling instruction in the main function, but now I see that *linkModules* does not work

Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: >> Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? > > Those running LNT should be/are: > >

I get a crash when I try to link multiple modules registered in their individual contexts. Documentation for Linker::LinkModules doesn't mention anything about contexts, and the first link succeeds. But the second link crashes. Is this not the right way to merge such modules? If not, then what is the right way? In any case, documentation for Linker::LinkModules should say if contexts are

Hello LLVMdev, I’m using LLVM to do static analysis exclusively (without any code generation). To implement this analysis, I’m using multiple address spaces to disambiguate the purpose of the pointed memory. Since address spaces never alias in my model, I set on to implement an alias analysis pass that would exactly provide this information, as I’m seeing a couple of otherwise dead store that

Is there a reason why existing buildbots are not generating LNT results? On 2013-01-28, at 11:37 AM, David Blaikie wrote: They're just build bots running LNT - check the build bot configuration code in the zorg llvm project repository. You'll probably need to do some work to get a machine quiet enough to have reliable/useful performance results, though On Jan 28, 2013 8:33 AM,

Hi, We're currently upgrading KLEE to work with LLVM >=3.3 and we've hit a problem. It seems r172749 removed support for linking a bitcode archive into a module. KLEE unfortunately depends on this to link in its runtime ( which amongst other things provides a C library [5] ). A first attempt at linking in a bitcode archive ourselves can be seen in [1]. This approach does not work

The -vectorize build bots test the BB-vectorizer. Thanks, Nadav On Jan 28, 2013, at 9:39 AM, "Redmond, Paul" <paul.redmond at intel.com> wrote: > Is O3-vectorize redundant now that the loop vectorizer is enabled by default? > > > On 2013-01-28, at 12:25 PM, David Blaikie wrote: > >> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 8:57 AM, Redmond, Paul <paul.redmond at