similar to: [LLVMdev] Execution Engine issue with composite module

Hi, I have this module: ; ModuleID = './executableModule' @typeInfo0 = constant { i32 } zeroinitializer @typeInfo1 = constant { i32 } { i32 1 } @typeInfo2 = constant { i32 } { i32 2 } @typeInfo3 = constant { i32 } { i32 3 } @typeInfo4 = constant { i32 } { i32 4 } @typeInfo5 = constant { i32 } { i32 5 } @typeInfo6 = constant { i32 } { i32 6 } declare void @print32Int(i32, i8*) declare

On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 7:24 PM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Teresa Johnson via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > I was wondering though what happens if we have an alias, which may or may > > not be weak itself, to a non-odr weak symbol that isn't prevailing. In > that > > case, do we eventually

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: charles quarra <charllsnotieneningunputocorreo at gmail.com> Date: 2012/12/13 Subject: error while linking modules with exception handling demo code To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Hi, I am building a module X with an arithmetic function foo, a module Y with an arithmetic function foo2 that invokes foo. For the invocation be a proper one (being

I have a module having the blockaddress instruction. When I link it into another module and delete the original, blockaddress disappears and is replaced by inttoptr (i32 1 to i8*). Please compile and run the attached program to see the demo of this problem. Right after linking modules, blockaddress still exists: @switch.bbs = internal global [3 x i8*] [i8* blockaddress(@my_func,

Hi Everyone, We are looking for advise regarding the proper use of LTO in conjunction with just-in time generated code. Our usage scenario goes as follows. 1. Our front-end generates an LLVM module. 2. A small runtime support library is linked-in. The runtime library is distributed as bitcode. It is generated using "clang++ -emit-llvm' and 'llvm-link'. This allows

On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 7:16 AM, Rafael Avila de Espindola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The rule should be that the alias to aliasee link is never broken. The > >> reason being that an alias at the file level is just another symbol with > >> the same value. > >> > >> So if foo is an alias to bar, accessing that foo will always be

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

I also tried iterating through the functions of the module and calling verifyFunction(), which also returns false, but does not cause an abort or report anything to stderr about what caused the verification to fail. From the doxygen for verifyFunction() and verifyModule(), it seems like they both should print information to stderr if the verification fails and should abort opt if

Thanks for the hindsight. I am currently working on a patch/potential fix which introduces a new Linker::ImportIntrinsicGlobalVariables flag. The patch includes a unit test reproducing the problem. Hopefully, that will help getting more feedback. Note that it might take a while before I am allowed to upload the patch since I need approval from Autodesk Legal department. Cheers, Benoit Benoit

Hello everyone: I have a little question about the second argument *action* of verifyFunction. In docs: *Enumerator: * *AbortProcessAction* verifyModule will print to stderr and abort() *PrintMessageAction* verifyModule will print to stderr and return true *ReturnStatusAction* verifyModule will just return true But it still abort when I pass

Hi Xiu, The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the action argument, and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) Perhaps you should file a bug against this, to allow you to not abort if you so wish. Joey On 11 June 2012 09:41, Guowei Xu <myesis at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello everyone: > > I have a little question

Thanks Peter, this is very useful feedback. I did manage to change the behavior of LinkOnlyNeeded to correctly import all variables with AppendingLinkage. In fact, I discovered that there was already something fishy. A variable with AppendingLinkage would get imported correctly from the source module if the destination module already contained a definition for that variable and wouldn't be

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Joey Gouly <joel.gouly at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Xiu, > > The Verifier pass runs a PreVerifier pass, which does not honour the > action argument, > and will always abort on a broken module, (Line 106, > lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp) > So the argument can not be used as described as the official document? I just want to make sure of that and

I followed what you said and called verifyModule() with the AbortProcessAction option. verifyModule() returns false, but does not abort and does not print out any information about what caused the verification to fail. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I am writing an interprocedural compiler pass. Because the passneeds >> information from a

Announcement: Composite Primary Keys gem now includes support for ActiveRecord Associations. Summary: Composite Primary Keys allows an ActiveRecord to support 2+ primary keys using the set_primary_keys class method. Previous versions provided full CRUD and find support. This latest release provides support for more ActiveRecord magic: associations (has_many, belongs_to, etc) Full report:

Due to the foolish implied assumption that there''d never be a revision to activerecord library, the Composite Primary Key code promptly broke for anyone who updated their apps to Rails 1.1.6 (with its activerecord-1.14.4) Now the gem dependencies are fixed and your legacy databases are free to wield composite primary keys without fear again. Description: Composite Primary Keys

How can auto completion be done for a composite field ? Concrete problem : Suppose the class Person with reference to a City object. The City has a name and a postal code. When entering a Person I want to enter the city in one text field that shows a composition of the city name and the postal : "city (postal)". And this with auto complete (and should afterwards be linked to the

ActiveRecords with composite primary keys now seem to happily support find/create/update/destroy options. Url: http://compositekeys.rubyforge.org Background: Rails/ActiveRecords has long been critised for not supporting legacy databases, especially composite primary keys. This gem extends ARs with this support. Cheers Nic -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Composite Primary Keys for ActiveRecords Bug fix release - 0.3.3 Notes: Fixed errors with id= and create. Note, the create method does not use sequences to generate ids for you. If anyone has any use cases where their DBs generate ids for their composite keys, pls let me know - we may need to add some syntax to the set_primary_keys command. Url: http://compositekeys.rubyforge.org Summary:

The AWDwR book has the following: add_index :categories_products, [:product_id, :category_id] add_index :categories_products, :category_id The first, composite index actually serves two purposes: it creates an index which can be searched on both foreign key columns, and with most databases it also creates an index that enables fast lookup by the product id. The second index then completes