similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM JIT on a Baremetal x86 Machine !!!

Hi Mian, Looking at the runlog, everything seems fine until LLVM attempts to use lseek() on a file. You see the PANIC because Horizon hasn't implemented lseek yet. Obviously the version of GlibC I was using does not use lseek in that circumstance, but yours does. You just need to implement lseek :) Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: Mian M. Hamayun

Hi James, I have two questions for you. Firstly, what is the role of 'module' in init.cc? I can see that its being treated like it is a 'bytecode' file, as we open it and then pass it to the ByteCoder and eventually construct llvm module from it. Like In file init.cc, line:121 FILE *stream = fopen("/module", "rb"); ... fread(c, 1, sz,

Hi, First question: "/module" is mapped to a special file that reads a kernel module passed in by the bootloader. Much like GRUB, kiwi's bootloader loads a kernel and can load one or more extra files into memory. These are passed to the kernel. The horizon kernel expects one file, which it makes accessible at "/module". This should be set up to be whatever you set

Hi James, Thanks again for bearing with me, you have been very helpful. I have got the problem fixed. In fact I needed to override the 'LSeek' implementation of SpecialFile in SpecialModule class as well. The log for the working example is attached, just as a reference. Now one more thing, when the build system creates the ISO9660 CD-ROM Image, it executes the following commands:

Thanks Eric, Jim and Geovani for your responses. Yes, we can combine two or more bitcode modules using llvm-ld and in this way functions can be inlined and optimized during this process. But I am also looking into the possibility of doing the same using LLVM Pass Manager (Without using llvm-ld). This looks difficult due to the fact that the function definitions ought to be in the same module

Hi Everyone, Hopefully this question is not too absurd. Actually I created an example in LLVM, where I generate two modules, one containing the function definition and the other module calling this function. (Question related to this was posted on this mailing list recently) Now I want to know, whether it is possible to "inline" the definition of this function in the caller module,

Hi, I tried this as well, using the following line to add function declaration to the caller module. Function::Create(FT, Function::ExternalLinkage, "gcd", mod); Where "FT" is the same as before. And the output produced by the PrintModulePass becomes: ; ModuleID = 'GCDMain' declare i32 @gcd(i32, i32) define i32 @main() { EntryBlock: %tmp = call i32 @gcd(i32

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Mian M. Hamayun <mian-muhammad.hamayun at imag.fr> wrote: > Hello Everyone, > > I am trying to create two modules in LLVM, where first module contains the > definition of a function, gcd in this example and another module contains a > call to this function. You can't reference a global in one module in another module. Either stick with

On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 4:23 AM, Mian M. Hamayun <mian-muhammad.hamayun at imag.fr> wrote: > But I am also looking into the possibility of doing the same using LLVM Pass > Manager (Without using llvm-ld). This looks difficult due to the fact that > the function definitions ought to be in the same module as the caller, in > order to be inlined and then optimized onwards, I guess

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mian M. Hamayun <mian-muhammad.hamayun at imag.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > I tried this as well, using the following line to add function declaration > to the caller module. > > Function::Create(FT, Function::ExternalLinkage, "gcd", mod); > > Where "FT" is the same as before. And the output produced by the >

Hello Everyone, I am trying to create two modules in LLVM, where first module contains the definition of a function, gcd in this example and another module contains a call to this function. My example is based on the following tutorial, with a few changes. http://llvm.org/releases/2.6/docs/tutorial/JITTutorial2.html When I execute the verifier pass on my modules, it complains that the

To do it manually, llvm-ld your modules to get a single module with both, then run opt on the result to optimize it. From source code, you can just use -O4 to the compiler on a system with a suitable linker (standard ld on OSX; binutils+gold plugin on Linux, for example). -Jim On Sep 1, 2011, at 9:27 AM, Mian M. Hamayun wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > Hopefully this question is not too

Hello, I want to build LLVM/Compiler-rt for baremetal targets like Cortex-M3. By adopting CMake options from http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/llvm-dev-Compiling-for-baremetal-ARMv4-on-Ubuntu-Linux-tp124226p124500.html, I can only build "libclang_rt.builtins-x86_64.a" in lib/linux, but what I want to build is "libclang_rt.builtins.arm.a". My CMake options are: cmake -G Ninja

Hi, I am trying to get a CentOS 6 system relaying mail via my G-Mail account. I followed the instructions found at https://www.zulius.com/how-to/set-up-postfix-with-a-remote-smtp-relay-host/but there seems to be a problem with authentication. I have done some research but still can't get this working. Any suggestions ? It seems the user and password are correct. Dec 27 23:15:36 hbc

Hello, What is for you the best GlusterFS scenario in using XenServer (i'm not talking about Xen on a linux but XenServer baremetal) for a web farm (Apache-Tomcat) ? I were thinking of using ZFS as the filesystem for the different nodes. The objectives/needs : * A storage cluster with the capacity equal to at least 1 node(assuming all nodes are the same). * being able to lose/take down any

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

I''ve been having some fun recently with trying to get a stock upstream kernel working, compiled with support for both baremetal and PV booting. This is with a view to getting a similar configuration into the Xensource automated test setup. Since I''ve just got such a kernel to boot a Fedora 8 PV guest I thought I''d share what I did, as there are a couple of tricks to

Hi all, I think using code coverage on baremetal has come up once or twice on llvmdev, but I don't think anyone has actually written up how the workflow works, or what issues come up.  This description is based on work done together with my colleague Weiming Zhao. By "baremetal" here, I mean an embedded environment without an operating system.  We specifically used a ARM target

Hello, I'm assessing the work required to enable Safe Stack for a bare metal target. Looking at compiler-rt/lib/safestack/, the current implementation depends on thread support for mutex & storing unsafe stack pointer. It also need several system calls: gettid, tgkill, mmap, munmap, mprotect. Our target doesn't has all underlying support it needs. My question is: what's the

Dear LLVM developers, Hello, I'm trying to find a way of cross-compiling my c code against Baremetal Cortex-M device (so target triple will be arm-none-eabi) only using LLVM/Clang, and not using anything from GNU (ld or libc). I'm doing this to know which one of LLVM/clang and GCC produces smaller flash image size because saving flash is a big deal in our projects. 1) When I just follow