similar to: [LLVMdev] Proposal: Adding an optional association field to llvm.global_ctors

Hi Reid, On 26/08/13 23:43, Reid Kleckner wrote: > To implement http://llvm.org/PR16959 > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16959>, I need to add a new field to > global_ctors. > > Static data members of class template instantiations can have initializers that > must only run once on program startup. Itanium solves this with guard variables > and the emission of

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Reid, > > On 26/08/13 23:43, Reid Kleckner wrote: > >> To implement http://llvm.org/PR16959 >> <http://llvm.org/bugs/show_**bug.cgi?id=16959<http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16959>>, >> I need to add a new field to >> >> global_ctors. >> >>

Hi Reid, On 03/09/13 20:08, Reid Kleckner wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr > <mailto:baldrick at free.fr>> wrote: > > Hi Reid, > > On 26/08/13 23:43, Reid Kleckner wrote: > > To implement http://llvm.org/PR16959 > <http://llvm.org/bugs/show___bug.cgi?id=16959 >

+reid, +llvmdev, -llvm-commits > On 2014-Jul-30, at 11:56, Rafael Avila de Espindola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> I think the fix is to upgrade old-style global arrays (or reject >> them?) in the .ll parser. >> > > The .ll format is not stable, so you should be able to just reject it. Looking a little deeper, it's not

On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > Looking a little deeper, it's not "old-style" exactly; rejecting this > > isn't trivial. > > > > - According to LangRef, the third field is optional [1]. > > > > [1]: > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#the-llvm-global-ctors-global-variable

Hello all! I extended the LDC2 with a pragma to register a funcion in the llvm.global_ctors or llvm.global_dtors list. On Linux, references to these functions are placed in .ctors and .dtors sections and everything runs fine. On Windows, functions from llvm.global_ctors are placed in section .CRT$XCU, which is automatically called by the MS C Runtime. However, functions from

Hi, I'd like to fix PR19590, which is about llvm.global_ctors containing functions that end up being empty after optimization (which causes the linker to add useless init_array entries to the output binary). globalopt removes empty functions from llvm.global_ctors, but by the time the function becomes empty globalopt has already run and it doesn't run again. I'm wondering what the

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

Hello, A strange problem appears when upgrading from release_34 to testing. Some transformations to bitcode files cause registered global_ctors to not be called. Here's an example (I've also attached the complete example and pasted it below): This works: clang -fsanitize=address -flto -c -o sum.o sum.c clang -fsanitize=address -o sum sum.o This doesn't work: clang

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

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

> I see. Using two comdats would still cause the same problem for us, > no? So the solution in the end is to emit: > > TU1: > -------------------------------- > @_ZN1UI1SE1kE = weak_odr constant i32 42, align 4, comdat _ZN1UI1SE1kE > @_ZGVN1UI1SE1kE = weak_odr global i64 1, comdat _ZN1UI1SE1kE > -------------------------------- > > TU2: >

Hi All, The general initializer support patch has landed (see 85fb997659b plus follow up fixes). Some quick background: Until now ORC, like MCJIT, has handled static initializer discovery by searching for llvm.global_ctors and llvm.global_dtors arrays in the IR added to the JIT. This approach suffers from several drawbacks: 1) It provides no built-in support for other program representations:

> On 2014-Jul-30, at 18:05, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2014-Jul-30, at 17:19, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Looking a little deeper, it's not "old-style" exactly; rejecting this

On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 9:42 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm /guessing/ this might be related to the COFF support specifically > (perhaps COFF has no appending linkage support - in some cases LLVM IR > supports the union of all semantics so that different formats can be fully > expressed - but it means when targeting certain formats, some features are

Hi, I would like to create an .init section in the LLVM backend. Can anyone shed me the light on how to do it? Do I have to create it in the clang? Thanks, Jin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161014/4f262397/attachment.html>

Hi All, In the interests of improving visibility into ORC JIT development I'm going to try writing weekly status updates for the community. I hope they will provide insight into the design and state of development of LLVM's JIT APIs, as well as serving as a convenient space for discussions among LLVM's large and growing community of JIT API users. The length and detail will vary

On Nov 9, 2011, at 11:34 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: >>> 1) [Requires ABI change] We emit dynamic initialization code for weak globals >>> (even in TUs where static initialization is required to be performed), unless >>> we can prove that every translation unit will use static initialization. We >>> emit the global plus its guard variable as a single object so

> Unfortunately, making the comdat be for the entire function is not > conformant with the ABI, which says that you either put the variable > and its guard in different comdats or you put them in a single comdat > named for the variable.  It also doesn't actually help unless we disable > inlining. I see. Using two comdats would still cause the same problem for us, no? So the

I talked about this with Nick in person months ago, and my understanding is that GlobalOpt is also an enabling optimization that needs to run early. For example, if we can eliminate an initializer to an internal global with no other stores to it, we can propagate the result. Maybe we should run it twice. On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com>