similar to: [LLVMdev] ExecutionEngine::updateGlobalMapping

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] ExecutionEngine::updateGlobalMapping"

2013 Nov 01
0
[LLVMdev] [Proposal] Adding callback mechanism to Execution Engines
Unless I'm missing something, indeed addGlobalMapping should not work with MCJIT. MCJIT does not consult EEState.getGlobalAddressMap when resolving symbols. Instead it uses RTDyldMemoryManager::getSymbolAddress which checks with DynamicLibrary::SearchForAddressOfSymbol, so Andy's suggestion of DynamicLibrary::addSymbol is better as it should work with both JIT and MCJIT. Another options
2012 Dec 10
2
[LLVMdev] how to get and modify a local variable's value through executionEngine?
hello guys, recently, i successfully get and modify global variable by execution engine. the functions i used are listed here: int m=1; EE->updateGlobalMapping(p->M->getGlobalVariable("x",true),&m); EE->recompileAndRelinkFunction(EntryFn); x is the global variable in the module. but how to modify the local variable in the module? -- View this message in context:
2012 Dec 10
0
[LLVMdev] how to get and modify a local variable's value through executionEngine?
Dong Chen <jameschennerd at gmail.com> writes: > hello guys, > recently, i successfully get and modify global variable by execution engine. > the functions i used are listed here: > int m=1; > EE->updateGlobalMapping(p->M->getGlobalVariable("x",true),&m); > EE->recompileAndRelinkFunction(EntryFn); > x is the global variable in the module.
2012 Dec 05
0
[LLVMdev] how to get and modify a global variable inside a module
On 12/5/12 2:49 PM, Dong Chen wrote: > here is the thing. i want to know the exact main memory address of the > Global Varibale's address when ExecutionEngine execut the *.ll code. further > more, i want to change the address, is it possible? I assume you want to adjust the value at that address, right? Then you might want to check the ExecutionEngine::getPointerToGlobal method. You
2011 Mar 22
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM optimization passes crash when running on second thread
Hello, I am trying to modify my LLVM-based compiler to perform an initial, no-optimization compilation synchronously on startup and then perform an asynchronous, optimized recompilation in the background, and I am getting in one of the optimization passes. - I am using the official release of LLVM 2.8 - I have compiled LLVM with threading enabled; I am running llvm::llvm_start_multithreaded() on
2017 Jan 24
2
Should analyses be able to hold AssertingVH to IR? (related to PR28400)
> On Jan 23, 2017, at 10:07 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > This thread kinda died. I'd like to revive it. > > The new PM stuff is making excellent progress, and this is actually one of the last things to
2016 Jul 12
2
Should analyses be able to hold AssertingVH to IR? (related to PR28400)
On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi Sean, > > Sean Silva wrote: > > While building test-suite with the new PM, I ran into problems with > > AssertingVH being triggered which is obvious in retrospect: > > https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28400 > > > > Both cases I ran into revolve around LVI
2016 Jul 06
4
Should analyses be able to hold AssertingVH to IR? (related to PR28400)
While building test-suite with the new PM, I ran into problems with AssertingVH being triggered which is obvious in retrospect: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=28400 Both cases I ran into revolve around LVI which holds AssertingVH. Essentially, what happens is this: 1. LVI holds an AssertingVH pointing at a BasicBlock 2. Some other pass ends up deleting that BB (e.g. SimplifyCFG) 3. BOOM
2012 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Remove function from module
Михаил wrote: > Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in > eraseFromParent(): > > While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi > An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! > UNREACHABLE executed at /Users/neonomaly/LLVM/LLVM/lib/VMCore/Value.cpp:561! The replaceAllUsesWith + eraseFromParent pattern remains correct, but there's
2012 Nov 26
1
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
I see. If I am writing my own listener can I still get back the (llvm::Function, void* Code, size_t Size)? Ciao. -----Original Message----- From: Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:24 PM To: Manny Ko Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC No. It adds a new event,
2012 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
No. It adds a new event, 'NotifyObjectEmitted'. The Intel JIT listener that I mentioned then uses the emitted object to find the functions (which are all emitted together). Because of the way that MCJIT is implemented, it isn't really feasible to reconstruct things like the EmittedFunctionDetails in the NotifyFunctionEmitted event. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: Manny Ko
2010 Mar 19
2
[LLVMdev] Use of blockadress() crashes llc in some cases
Hi! In some cases the use of blockaddress() crashes llc. I've attached two test-cases, one that crashes and for reference a slightly modified one (just 2 lines are commented) that works. I compile the files with # llvm-as test_crash.ll -o - | llc -f -o temp.s - and get 0 llc 0x0000000000c6ab6f 1 llc 0x0000000000c6b38d 2 libpthread.so.0 0x00007feccd2270f0 3
2012 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
Ops. I meant to say 3.1. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Manny Ko Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:27 AM To: Eli Bendersky Cc: Benjamin Kramer; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC Sorry for speaking too soon. It is missing from 3.2 which is the
2012 Apr 22
2
[LLVMdev] Remove function from module
It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Yours sincerely, Kadysev Mikhail 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > Михаил wrote: >> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still get bug in >> eraseFromParent(): >> >> While deleting: i32 (%class.B*, i32)* %_ZN1B1xEi >> An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! >>
2012 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Remove function from module
Михаил wrote: > It is ModulePass with AnalysisUsage of CallGraph Ah, then you'll need to update the CallGraph first. Use "CG.removeFunctionFromModule(F);" before deleting it. Nick > Yours sincerely, > Kadysev Mikhail > > 22.04.2012, в 5:20, Nick Lewycky написал(а): > >> Михаил wrote: >>> Thanks, but I replaceAllUsesWith() - works well, but I still
2012 Nov 26
2
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
Thanks Andrew for the update. Does it support NotifyFunctionEmitted? Cheers. -----Original Message----- From: Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:06 PM To: Manny Ko Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC The current 3.2 code branch has events being broadcast from the MCJIT engine
2011 Nov 22
4
[LLVMdev] Follow-up questions after successful upgrade to LLVM 3.0rc4
We were successful in upgrading our JIT project to LLVM 3.0rc4 last week, after initially struggling with the various usage and IR changes from V2.9. But we have some follow-up questions: 1) In spite of building and running our tests cleanly with DEBUG+ASSERTS and RELEASE builds, we consistently see a crash when we use a DEBUG build without ASSERTs. The crash appears whenever we use the
2012 Nov 26
0
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
The current 3.2 code branch has events being broadcast from the MCJIT engine when a new object is emitted, but the profiling listeners do not do anything with the events (and I don't expect they will before the 3.2 release becomes official). I have implemented some code in trunk since the 3.2 branch to traverse the emitted object and pick out named functions in the IntelJITEventsListener. An
2012 Nov 26
4
[LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC
Sorry for speaking too soon. It is missing from 3.2 which is the version I have been using. If it is already implemented than it is very good news. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Eli Bendersky [mailto:eliben at google.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:25 AM To: Manny Ko Cc: Albert Graef; Benjamin Kramer; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT
2014 Jan 03
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Goal for 3.5: Library-friendly headers
On 03/01/2014 21:55, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:20 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com > <mailto:clattner at apple.com>> wrote: > > n Nov 11, 2013, at 12:09 PM, Alp Toker <alp at nuanti.com > <mailto:alp at nuanti.com>> wrote: > > >> Even when you have a !NDEBUG build, the platform assert() is pretty