similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem with llvm-c

Hi James, On 13/05/13 00:25, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following program (attached) > > I produces, using the llvm-c API, this: > ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' > > define i32 @test2() { > EntryBlock: > ret i32 3 > } > > But, I want it to produce this: > ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' > > define i32 @test2()

Hello, [Using LLVM r155315, according to `svn log | head`] I am experimenting with programatically building and jitting functions in a module, and I seem to be coming across a crash in some generated code. Using the llvm-c interface I build up the module which dumps like this: ; ModuleID = 'MyModule' target datalayout = "i686-apple-darwin11" target triple =

Hi David, I'm not certain, but to me the "LLVMSetTarget(module, "i686-apple-darwin11");" line looks suspicious. I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of how target triples get handled, but it looks to me like that's requesting 32-bit code. I think that if you omit that line completely then the target will be inferred from the execution environment. My best

Hello, I'm trying to get to grips with the c interface of llvm intending to eventually develop a front end for Purebasic Though I've hit the wall already writing an iterative Fibonacci function. While I think the module dump looks ok it doesn't work for any input > 2 the function returns 2, the loop only executes once Hopefully someone can see what the problem is from the

I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: define i32 @add(i32, i32) { EntryBlock: %2 = add i32 %0, %1 ret i32 %2 } define i32 @eval_expr() { EntryBlock: ret i32 <badref> } Instruction does not dominate

Hi edA-qa mort-ora-y, On 02/11/12 10:20, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 >

On Sep 23, 2004, at 4:08 PM, Jeff Cohen wrote: > MSVC++ is picky about this. It considers classes and structs to be > different types so you have to be consistent. If you forward declared > a > struct as a class within the same compilation unit, it would complain > about that too. It's not just linking. You are right... BTW, I've just fixed that problem in my checkout

Hi, I've read over the "LLVM Language Reference Manual" a few times, and writing some ll code, but i'm stuck at a very basic point. How to decrement a counter variable ? int %count(int %n) { EntryBlock: %cond = seteq int %n, 0 br bool %cond, label %Exit, label %Next Next: ; how to decrement n ? %new_n = sub int %n, 1 br label %EntryBlock Exit: ret int 0 } I guess I

edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote: > I'm having trouble figuring out what the error "Instruction does not > dominate all uses!" means. I'm trying to construct a call to a function > with two parameters. The printed IR, with error, looks like this: > > define i32 @add(i32, i32) { > EntryBlock: > %2 = add i32 %0, %1 > ret i32 %2 > } > > define i32

Hello LLVM team, our software FluidSIM (www.fluidsim.de) simulates pneumatic, hydraulic and electric circuits. For the mathematical models we use the language Modelica (www.modelica.org). We developed our own Modelica simulator which solves the dynamical created algebraic differential equation systems. One tool is our small JIT compiler, which compiles mathematical expressions like “2*x0 +

I have just committed a change to Value.h that changes the Value class from using a "struct" declaration to a "class" declaration. I'm not sure why VC7.1 would generate different symbols for class vs. struct. I'm pretty certain that's a violation of the ABI. In any event, we should be consistent. The Value class is declared "class Value" in numerous places

Update: I have been working on this all day, and I finally got it working more or less with the pattern instruction selector... However, the generated code is not very good, and I haven't implemented the expand to calls if the target does not support these FP instructions. As an example, in the following function the sub abs and compare compiles to 13 instructions! Also it has changed the

Apologies for the noop question in advance (just getting started with LLVM), and I'm not entirely sure if this is the right list to post to. is it? I have some lambda functions as member variables that I want to have my LLVM language make calls to. I've added a mapping to them, but this doesn't seem to enable LLVM to resolve the functions. I asked on stackoverflow but the suggestion

Hi, I tried this as well, using the following line to add function declaration to the caller module. Function::Create(FT, Function::ExternalLinkage, "gcd", mod); Where "FT" is the same as before. And the output produced by the PrintModulePass becomes: ; ModuleID = 'GCDMain' declare i32 @gcd(i32, i32) define i32 @main() { EntryBlock: %tmp = call i32 @gcd(i32

Valery, First response of several. I don't know why the demo page at UIUC is unavailable but there is an enhanced copy of it running on the mirror at http://llvm.x10sys.com/demo/ if you ever need it. Running it produced the following LLVM equivalent for the C code in your example. implementation ; Functions: int %add1(int %x) { entry: %tmp.1 = add int %x, 1 ; <int> [#uses=1]

Hi all, This question was probably asked million times before, but I wasted few hours and didn't find the solution.. What is the best way to traverse a large array (say size of million) with GetElementPtr The problem with the following code, is that it forces you to create million constant index values: intVars = new AllocaInst(Type::getInt32Ty(ctx), allocaSize, "intVars",

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" > which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows > the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to > do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The

On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mian M. Hamayun <mian-muhammad.hamayun at imag.fr> wrote: > Hi, > > I tried this as well, using the following line to add function declaration > to the caller module. > > Function::Create(FT, Function::ExternalLinkage, "gcd", mod); > > Where "FT" is the same as before. And the output produced by the >

Hi Óscar, Thank you for your prompt reply. Unfortunately, I still need more guidance as using the Demo page to generate C++ code didn't result in a global variable being used. Basically, I'm following your advice to use a LoadInst: Value *v = new LoadInst(result, "", theBasicBlock); Function *myfn = cast<Function>(v); I was not sure how I could get a BasicBlock for the

Valery, Attached are three files: "valery.cpp" which contains your original, "reid.cpp" which contains corrections to most of the FIXME items and "diffs" which shows the differences between them. The differences should be instructive on what to do. You were really, really close .. just a few details changing. The code in "reid.cpp" compiles but I