similar to: [LLVMdev] Supporting Classes using OCaml.

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 4:26 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Vitor Luis Menezes <vitor at utexas.edu> wrote: >> We've got the following test case: >> >> >> class A { >> public: >>   int x; >>   A(int x) : x(x) {} >>   int hoo() {return 4;} >>   virtual int foo() {return x;}

Hello everyone, I am using the OCaml binding to read and manipulate llvm bitcode and I have trouble to read the basic blocks of functions. The OCaml functions iter_blocks and fold_left_blocks are always behaving as if the list of blocks is empty, whatever the input file. Also, if I dump the following function: define i32 @add(i32 %x, i32 %y) nounwind uwtable ssp { %1 = alloca i32, align 4

Hi All, Recently I am using clang++ (3.8.0) to compile some c++ programs and find that some type names will be changed after linking different modules. Here is a simple example: I have two files: main.cpp and b.cpp main.cpp #include <iostream> using namespace std; class A { public: virtual void f() { cout << "A:\tf\n"; } }; int main () { A *p = new A;

Hello everyone, I'm new to LLVM (which is a really great project by the way) and I hope this is the right place for my question. In the LLVM Language Reference Manual I found the "jumptable" function attribute, which seems to be exactly what I need for my project (where I want to add one level of indirection to every function call), but I have trouble figuring out, how to use

Thanks,Cheers! I found the problem is that the "Function *call_print" using the same name as the “class call_print”, which made the compiler wrongly resolved the call_print type! But I got another problems. I successfully compile the pass and I can insert the call printf (C Lib function) instructions in the LLVM IR(eg: call.bc). If the call.bc didn't contain call printf

Hi Bill, Thanks for working on this. Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as part of this effort? Thanks in advance Garrison On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:29, Bill Wendling wrote: > What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that > I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've

Hi, I have: ... @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a function\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { entry: %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0)) ret i32 0 } Then I get after trying to erase the function from the module: 511

Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp). It seems that the assertion fails because it fails to recover the "original name" of the global value. ModuleSummaryIndex::getOriginalNameBeforePromote attempts to get the

Hi Taewook, On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:38 PM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Encountered “assert(GS != DefinedGlobals.end())” failure while running > ThinLTO. The assertion statement is in MustPreserveGV lambda function in > llvm::thinLTOInternalizeModule (lib/Transforms/IPO/FunctionImport.cpp). > > > > It seems that the assertion fails

On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > Hi, > I have: > ... > @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a > function\0A\00", align 1 > ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable > define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { > entry: > %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x > i8]* @.str1, i32 0,

Hi Hal, Thanks for your hint! $ /opt/llvm-svn/bin/opt -S -internalize -internalize-public-api-list=main -globaldce hello3.ll -o hello3.dce.ll    it works :) But I argue that `main` Function should be inserted into ExternalNames by default: Index: lib/Transforms/IPO/Internalize.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Transforms/IPO/Internalize.cpp 

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global > materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a > function definition. As I pasted on my first email, > > > > ; Materializable > > ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable >

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I > restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up > the build artifacts :( > So a couple things were added to gold since then, index-based linkonce/weak resolution and some more aggressive internalization. I don't

Hi LLVM developers, $ cat hello.c #include <stdio.h> void foo() { } int main(int argc, char *argv[]) {   for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {     printf("%d\n", i);   }   return 0; } $ /opt/llvm-svn/bin/clang --version Fedora clang version 6.0.0 (trunk 316308) (based on LLVM 6.0.0svn) Target: x86_64-redhat-linux Thread model: posix InstalledDir: /opt/llvm-svn/bin $

Hello Teresa, Thank you for your analysis. One thing to note is that the global materializer materializes the value as a function declaration, not a function definition. As I pasted on my first email, ; Materializable ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define weak_odr void @foo(%1*) unnamed_addr #7 comdat($comdat1) align 2 personality i32 (...)* @__gxx_personality_v0 {} is materialized to ;

Hello Has there been any progress on this topic ? The 3.9 optimizer output is still the same as I just looked. https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24448 Ciao Nat! Sanjay Patel schrieb: > [cc'ing Zia] > > We have this transform with -Os for some cases after: > http://reviews.llvm.org/rL244601 > http://reviews.llvm.org/D11363 > > but something in this example is

On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 5:18 PM, Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> wrote: > Hello Teresa, > > > > Thank you for your reply. I’m trying to create a small repro but find it > hard to nail down because originally it is a big build. This happens with > gold linker. > I think I need to see a smaller test case, looking through the code I'm not sure how we ended up in this

Ok, good to know. Any luck on a smaller test case for either of the problems? I tried building all the C/C++ SPEC cpu2006 benchmarks with -g -flto=thin at head and didn't get the failure. Let me try to look into how the debug metadata is normally dropped from the imported decl. In the meantime, could you find out the answers to the questions I had (see below) about the linkage type of the

On 10/24/13 2:13 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> I have: >> ... >> @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a >> function\0A\00", align 1 >> ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable >> define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { >> entry: >> %call =

It was r274523. I’m not sure it was the same module. By mistake I restarted the build with the previous version without backing backing up the build artifacts :( Thanks, Taewook From: Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> Date: Friday, July 29, 2016 at 3:30 PM To: Taewook Oh <twoh at fb.com> Cc: via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [ThinLTO]