similar to: [LLVMdev] Minor typo in source file ObjectFile.h

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Mikael Lyngvig > Subject: [LLVMdev] Minor typo in source file ObjectFile.h > const uint64_t UnknownAddressOrSize = ~0ULL > This found at line 260 in ObjectFile.h.  Notice the 0ULL thingy. What do you find troubling about it? It's simply a way to set all bits in an unsigned variable. -

Here we go again... It took me a while to figure out that the stuff below is valid: ~0ull. I never saw the suffix written in uppercase before and the code below must be eligble for a price in hilarious coincidences. Cheers, Mikael ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> Date: 2012/5/31 Subject: Minor typo in source file ObjectFile.h To:

While working on some other changes I came across a problem where ELFObjectFile::getSymbolFileOffset was returning a different value than I expected in the case where the symbol in question was a section. Looking at the code, it seems obviously wrong, but I didn't want to just commit my change without at least asking if anyone knew of a good reason for the current behavior. I know there

Hey! I've been studying the LLVM C bindings (include/llvm-c/) and it 's not very clear to me how I could create an ELF object file with them. Function "LLVMCreateObjectFile" (in Object.h) needs an "LLVMMemoryBufferRef" object but I'm not sure how I should create one using the created "LLVMModuleRef". The reason why I want to use the C bindings and

Hi everyone, Having proper error handling in LLVM's Object parsing library is a nice thing by itself, but it would additionally allow us to find bugs by fuzzing (see r238451 that adds llvm-dwarfdump-fuzzer tool), for which the clean input validation is essential. This is a generic discussion of state of affairs. I want to do some progress in fuzzing before we finish it (especially if we

> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] > On Behalf Of Kuperstein, Michael M via llvm-dev > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Test Email - Apologies for the noise > I'm seeing the same issue here, also with Outlook. > Had to CC the list manually for this email) Same problem here - good to know it's not just me. For reference, I'm using Outlook version

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Kaylor, Andrew > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [Proposal] Adding callback mechanism to Execution Engines > If the function is in a statically linked module, you need to do something to explicitly expose it. With > the older JIT engine you can use addGlobalMapping as Yaron suggests, but I

Hi I come across the following exception when I use the llvm-dwarfdump -debug-info target_binary: llvm-dwarfdump: /home/linux/llvm-7/llvm/lib/MC/MCRegisterInfo.cpp:87: int llvm::MCRegisterInfo::getLLVMRegNum(unsigned int, bool) const: Assertion `I != M+Size && I->FromReg == RegNum && "Invalid RegNum"' failed. Stack dump: 0. Program arguments:

I've been debugging a segfault issue with the elfreader and I would like to point out something that I have noticed. ELF.h declares an inline function, getElfArchType (MemoryBuffer *Object). When this function is called from ObjectFile::createELFObjectFile the pointer to Object was getting corrupted. The only thing that distinguished this pointer was that it was declared as a

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 6:18 PM, Bryan Keiren < bryan.keiren at guerrilla-games.com> wrote: > We are indeed trying to completely clean the heap before exiting main(). > Which means that you either don't have threads, or you join all threads before main exits. Is that the case? Good for you if so! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Caldarale, Charles R

That seems to work, thanks! The specific code I ended up with to call int64_t print(int64_t) looks like: auto f = builder.CreateIntToPtr( ConstantInt::get(builder.getInt64Ty(), uintptr_t(print)), PointerType::getUnqual(FunctionType::get( builder.getInt64Ty(), {builder.getInt64Ty()}, false))); return builder.CreateCall(f, args); On Mon, Mar

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of David Chisnall > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Publication: Languages Used in LLVM During Compilation > How do I download it? The link sends me to a site with ads, then when I > find the little English icon, there's a download link that takes me to a > page with a picture telling me an

Hi Dave I am not going to access any hardware. I am using clang to analysis the ARM binaries. The binary is 483.xalancbmk in CPU SPEC2006. When I use the optimization O0, no crash will occur. The crash occurs when I set optimization level as O1,O2,O3 and Os. If I have to recompile and rerun the tests. What version of llvm is suggested. It would be better if anyone could provide the patch on this

Hi Christian Your use case seems to have similar requirements as remote JITing in ORC. So far I haven't used that part myself and I am sure Lang can tell you much more about it. However, this comment on the RemoteObjectClientLayer class sounds promising for your questions (1) and (2): /// Sending relocatable objects to the server (rather than fully relocated /// bits) allows JIT'd code

> From: Armin Steinhoff [mailto:armin at steinhoff.de] > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] New JIT APIs > is >  delete EE;   // execution engine >  llvm_shutdown(); > sufficient ? AFAICT, llvm_shutdown() must not be called unless you reach a point where LLVM will not be used again by the process (e.g., termination), as it destroys statically allocated objects. We delete the

I have a few questions about the new ORC JIT. I saw Lang Hames (hi!) excellent talk at the llvm-dev meeting a few weeks ago. The ORC JIT is undergoing some API changes and I'd like/need to take advantage of them. (1) How do I take ownership of the ObjectFile once the ORC JIT has created it? I'd like to take ownership of object files generated by the ORC JIT so that I can save them to

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Sean Silva > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] What would cause instructions to NOT make it into the module? > It is a pass that can be run like any other pass. See createVerifierPass(). You can also just call verifyModule() with the appropriate parameters; it's defined in

Hi David, Sorry, I forget to attach the valgrind dump to this. I was not sure if my implementation was ok, so I wanted to ask if I've done something wrong first. Process terminating with default action of signal 11 (SIGSEGV) Access not within mapped region at address 0xB at 0x54F4516: llvm::object::COFFObjectFile::moveSectionNext(llvm::object::DataRefImpl&) const

Hi Dave Sorry, I meant the hardware you're using to compile LLVM - you mentioned it took you a long time to rebuild it so it would be hard for you to write/experiment on tests. ============================= Compiling LLVM doesn't take me too much time(less than 2 hours). The hardware is good enough and I am using interl E5 CPU. What I mean is that it took me a long time to analysis the

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Eli Bendersky > Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting rid of tabs in LLVM's assembly output? > Problem: I then get tabs in my tests, which are discouraged by LLVM's > own code standards, because assembly output uses tabs extensively. > Proposal: get rid of tabs by just replacing them with