similar to: [LLVMdev] structure member alignment for vector types

Hi Evan, all, The most obvious thing to me would be to extend the load instruction to have an additional form that takes a vector of pointers instead of a single pointer. This form would return a vector of values instead of a single value. If a gather instruction is not available on the target, then the load could be lowered to a series of scalar loads and insertelements. Thanks, Nick On

Hi, I'm using LLVM for JIT compilation of shaders for my ray tracer (http://www.indigorenderer.com). My primary development target is 32 bit and 64 bit Windows. JIT compilation of shaders is working great for x86 code, but for x64 code LLVM doesn't really work, due to ABI incompatibilties in the form of calling convention errors with x64 windows, I think. Anyway, my questions are as

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? > > Are you running JIT'd code within another process that can be debugged (i.e. the simulation binary)? If so, you might want to have LLVM generate a full blown dylib, not just a JIT'd chunk of code and load the dylib using the standard shared

Wouldn't it mean each time a function is compiled it would need to be bundled to its own dylib? How well would that scale? Félix Le 2010-07-07 à 15:41:18, Reid Kleckner a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >>> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? >> >> Are you running JIT'd code within another

Right, I'm suggesting we keep llvm_shutdown() for users who want this control, but also destroy still-live ManagedStatic instances if llvm_shutdown() is not called. This helps in the case where there is not a clear time when llvm_shutdown() can be called, especially given that LLVM cannot be resurrected in the same process due to current limitations in the pass registry, and perhaps

On 08/03/2015 18:07, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 8, 2015 at 9:55 AM, Nicholas Chapman > <admin at indigorenderer.com <mailto:admin at indigorenderer.com>> wrote: > > Hi all, > I have identified what seems to be a limitation of LLVM with > regard to marking 'sret functions' as pure/readonly. > > For some context - I have

Hi All, I was in the process of implementing a gathering load for my language. I got the getelementptr vector form working. However there doesn't seem to be a way to load a vector of values using the vector of pointers from getelementptr. Am I correct that this is not possible with LLVM IR currently (apart from with the avx2 gather intrinsic)? And if so, are there plans to allow

> On Behalf Of Nicholas Chapman > > On 04/12/2012 06:29, Michael Spencer wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 8:08 PM, Gordon Keiser <gkeiser at arxan.com> > wrote: > >> As an update to this: > >> http://connect.microsoft.com/VisualStudio/feedback/details/769222/cl- > >> exe-ice-when-building-llvm-trunk-at-o2 > >> > >> Microsoft

On 22 May 2013, at 13:23, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > Why the private message? If unintentional, please forward this to the list. Ooops, forgot to hit reply-all. Didn't the LLVM lists used to default to reply-to-list behaviour? > So, the JIT is analogous to dlopen, so it should be using general > dynamic and local dynamic models. It is only the

On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like this: > > extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { > item *that = 0; > try { > that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); > that->~item(); > } catch (...) { > that->~item(); > } > } No I

On Mar 23, 2012, at 6:27 AM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: >> >>> Unfortunately, I'm not following. How is having the code that catches all exceptions in a separate function different from what I proposed (putting the try/catch in the

On 17 Nov 2012, at 00:12, Kaylor, Andrew wrote: > My best guess is that this is trying to set up something that’s actually backed by two pages where whatever is written to the RW page will be copied to the RX page, though if that’s possible it would seem to defeat the purpose of not allowing RWX. The correct way of implementing this is to have one physical page mapped to two locations in

Hi, I am wondering how I can get the JIT'd llvm IR during VMKit execution. I am stuck in precompiling phase (when loading library classes), and I am facing various problems. If I can log the JIT'd llvm IR (from Java bytecode), that would be convenient. I turned on --enable-debug, but it doesn't seem very helpful at this stage. Any other suggestion is welcome. Thanks very much.

Hi everyone, I'm running into a problem using JIT compilation on Linux x86-64. LLVM revision is 62079. I've installed a lazy function creator using InstallLazyFunctionCreator(). I return the value 0x5ce64e from my lazyFunctionCreator function. However, the disassembled JIT'd function looks like this: 0x00007f45ef2b6018: sub $0x8,%rsp 0x00007f45ef2b601c: mov

I've been trying to get oprofile results for jitted code without success. I built an 3.5.0 llvm with oprofile enabled, and tested it with lli on a small test case. I built the latest oprofile from the git repository. Debugging I can see that lli is registering the listener and making the oprofile calls to the libopagent api to specify the names and address ranges of jit'd routines, and

Hmm, I'm confused. The DSO is compiled with gcc. Do I need to compile it with clang instead? I don't believe the JITted code uses the thread support library directly, although I suppose it may be hidden with templates and/or inline functions... On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:43 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Geoff, > > If you want to access the variable

On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:29 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Mar 22, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Paul J. Lucas <paul at lucasmail.org> wrote: > >> Unfortunately, I'm not following. How is having the code that catches all exceptions in a separate function different from what I proposed (putting the try/catch in the thunks)? (Ideally, I want to minimize layers of function calls.) Again

On Mar 23, 2012, at 4:29 PM, Paul J. Lucas wrote: > On Mar 23, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Let's take your example. You will have code that looks like this: >> >> extern "C" void thunk_item_M_delete( void *v_that ) { >> item *that = 0; >> try { >> that = static_cast<item*>( v_that ); >>

Hi All, I was wondering if there is an optimisation pass that moves a stack allocated array, initialised with constant values, to a global constant array. And if there is such a pass, what requirements are there for it to operate? My optimised IR is below. As you can see an array of 5 integers is created with alloca, then each element is stored to in turn. It would be nice if this array was

My project has a C++ library that I want to allow the user to use via some programming language to be JIT'd to call functions in said library. For the sake of simplicity, assume the library has classes like: class item { public: item(); item( int ); ~item(); // ... }; class item_iterator { public: virtual ~item_iterator(); virtual bool next( item *result ) = 0; };