similar to: [LLVMdev] dynamic linkage for jit

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 all, Is it too soon to start porting EH code to the new C++ API? Are there sample implementations? llvm.org/demo still uses the old EH gizmos. should we wait for 3.0 release? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110930/3bc09ea9/attachment.html>

On Sep 30, 2011, at 11:02 AM, Charllls Alquarra wrote: > Hi all, > > Is it too soon to start porting EH code to the new C++ API? Nope! :-) > Are there sample implementations? llvm.org/demo still uses the old > EH gizmos. should we wait for 3.0 release? If you're using the LLVM APIs, then looking at how it's implemented in clang is a good start:

On Apr 13, 2011, at 21:43 CDT, John McCall wrote: > And it's okay to have limited goals! I personally don't; I think we > should aim to get the IR design good enough to support crazy resumptive > languages with crazy custom unwinding schemes. But I need to know what > range of problems we're willing to consider solving before I can usefully > weigh different

On May 4, 2011, at 8:23 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: >> I don't know how realistic it is to model the loop buffer in the register allocator, but this would a very interesting thing to try to optimize for in a later pass. If an inner loop "almost" fits, then it would probably be worth heroic effort to try to reduce the size of it to shave off a few bytes. > > Jakob and I have

> De: Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> >Para: >Enviado: miércoles, 11 de julio de 2012 9:40 >Asunto: Re: [LLVMdev] dynamic linkage for jit > >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. Hi Duncan,

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

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) Thanks, paul -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

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

Without wanting to sound too pushy, I'm wondering if there is any update on the status of Mate now that Centos 8 has been released? I would love to jump on C8 and start playing with it, but the lack of Mate is kind of a showstopper for me at the moment. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com

> 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.

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

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

Mon, 20 Jul 2020 19:19:14 +0100 Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>: > On 20/07/2020 19:01, RhineDevil wrote: > > Mon, 20 Jul 2020 18:24:15 +0100 Rowland penny via samba <samba at lists.samba.org>: > > > > No, it wouldn't, basically all that adding '--rfc-2307' to the provision > > command does, is to add the ypServ30 ldif to AD.

Hola, En el grupo local SevillaR hemos organizado un hackathon para el próximo sábado 30 de Enero. Toda la información está aquí: https://github.com/SevillaR/jacaton/blob/master/README.md. Por si alguien se anima Uno de los proyectos que vamos a desarrollar es un paquete para obtener y analizar los datos de calidad del aire en Andalucía, por lo que la presentación de Carlos sobre Madrid nos

TL;DR - when linking from a lazily loaded module and using Linker::LinkOnlyNeeded, bodies of used functions aren't being copied during linking. Previously on one of our products, we would lazily load our runtime module (around 9000 functions), and link some user module into this (which is in all practical use cases much smaller). Then, post linking, we have a pass that runs over the

Eva, ¿Algo asi o te entiendo mal? l <- list()l$nombre <- "Ana"l$apellido <- "Pérez"parametro <- "nombre"if (exists(paste('nombre', 'OnValidate', sep=''))) nombreOnValidate(1:5) # cuidado con el enviroment nombreOnValidateif (exists(paste('s', 'um', sep=''))) sum(1:5) # esto lo agrego como ejemplo[1] 15l[

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:31:31AM +0000, Daniel Liew wrote: > 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

Hi，All this one pass that will use the Linker namespace { // Hello2 - The second implementation with getAnalysisUsage implemented. llvm::StringRef programNametest(""); struct Hello2 : public ModulePass { static char ID; // Pass identification, replacement for typeid Hello2() : ModulePass(ID) {} virtual bool runOnModule(llvm::Module &M){ llvm::Linker