similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVM] What has happened to LLVM bitcode archive support?

On 20 December 2013 05:39, Daniel Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Rafael and other LLVM devs, > > I'm currently upgrading a project that uses LLVM that links a bitcode > archive (a C library) with a module. Originally we used > Linker::LinkInFile() but that was removed by r172749. So I started > looking for an alternative and I found >

Hi Rafael, On 20 Dec 2013, at 14:30, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 20 December 2013 05:39, Daniel Liew <daniel.liew at imperial.ac.uk> wrote: >> Hi Rafael and other LLVM devs, >> >> I'm currently upgrading a project that uses LLVM that links a bitcode >> archive (a C library) with a module. Originally we used >> Linker::LinkInFile() but that was removed

Hi, We're currently upgrading KLEE to work with LLVM >=3.3 and we've hit a problem. It seems r172749 removed support for linking a bitcode archive into a module. KLEE unfortunately depends on this to link in its runtime ( which amongst other things provides a C library [5] ). A first attempt at linking in a bitcode archive ourselves can be seen in [1]. This approach does not work

On Tue, Dec 17, 2013 at 10:31:31AM +0000, Daniel Liew wrote: > Hi, > > We're currently upgrading KLEE to work with LLVM >=3.3 and we've hit a problem. > > It seems r172749 removed support for linking a bitcode archive into a > module. KLEE unfortunately depends on this to link in its runtime ( > which amongst other things provides a C library [5] ). > > A

>> Therefore LLVM is still supporting runtime libraries that consist of llvm >> bitcode files (even if the format is now different) > > runtime? It is still possible to build .a files if that is what you men. Sorry I haven't explained very clearly. The tool that I work on is an interpreter of LLVM IR and when the tool runs, it links in an archive of bitcode modules into the

r172749 removed Linker/LinkArchives.cpp and Linker/LinkItems.cpp citing: This code is dead, and the "right" way to get this support is to use the platform-specific linker-integrated LTO mechanisms, or the forthcoming LLVM linker. Could someone please expand on what the "right way" is and these LTO mechanisms or where I can find further information? We used several

Hi Chris, What functions were you using, and what features of them were you using? If you just need to link individual bit codes together, you can do it in exactly the same way that llvm-link does (using Linker::LinkModules). If you really need features like being able to pull objects out of archives, then you should use an LTO enabled linker (either the system linker on OS X, or gold + the gold

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 04:41:41PM -0800, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi Tom, > > From the context I am assuming you are in a JIT context, so the comments > about using a platform specific LTO mechanism don't apply. > > Were you using this code to extract bitcode files from archives, or just to > link in an individual bitcode file? > Hi Daniel, I was using this code to

Looking at /tools/llvm-link/llvm-link.cpp may give you some ideas here. I havent looked at your specific use case, but llvm-link uses ParseIRFile to pull in a bitcode file and build a Module for it. You can then create a Composite using the Module * and call Linker::LinkModules(Composite.get(), NewModuleToLink.get()... to link a new Module to your Composite Module. -Chris On Feb 14, 2013, at

Hi Philip, Thank you very much for your comments. I think I’ve discovered a root cause. The problem was in linking bit code archive files with the module. At some point, std::set<Module*> is used and iterated over. I believe this was the reason why e.g. It worked consistently with ASLR turned off and produced non-deterministic output otherwise. I changed that bit to use vector instead and

Hi Daniel, In r172749 you removed the Linker::LinkInFiles() function and mentioned in the commit message that users of this function should migrate to "platform-specific linker-integrated LTO mechanisms, or the forthcoming LLVM linker." I'm trying to update this code: http://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/tree/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp to work with TOT

Hi Tom, >From the context I am assuming you are in a JIT context, so the comments about using a platform specific LTO mechanism don't apply. Were you using this code to extract bitcode files from archives, or just to link in an individual bitcode file? - Daniel On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > In r172749 you

> Excuse me for the diversion but, is that interpreter of LLVM IR available > somewhere? Details on how it works, performance, etc? I'd be interested Yes it is available. The tool (KLEE [1]) is actually a lot more than an interpreter (although it can be used as one). KLEE allows you to mark certain variables (e.g. program inputs) as "symbolic". What this means is that the

> I would suggest for now building the archive with gnu ar and the > plugin, that way you have an index and don't need to read all members. Thanks for the suggestion.I'll check out [1]. It would be definitely be faster using LLVMGold.so with ar but to be honest I'd rather take a small performance hit but make life much easier for our users at the moment because the build process

> We are going this way, yes. You've confused me a bit here ( maybe I was being too vague ) Okay so I understand thst the old LLVM specific archive format is now gone. However it seems you are allowing LLVM bitcode files ( I assume that's what you mean by "IL" - does that stand for "intermediate language"? It's not in [1] ) to be placed inside the more

Hi, I'm working on a tool (KLEE) that interprets LLVM bitcode. One of the things it does is it instruments the LLVM bitcode with checks for division by zero. It does this by injecting calls to a function "klee_div_zero_check(long long divisor)" just before every division instruction (e.g. SDiv). These checks are injected by a pass that has been implemented in KLEE. This

Hi, I'm trying to compile UML with LLVM. However, LLVM-LD hangs whiile linking modules. It's consuming 99% of the CPU llvm-ld -v -r -o kernel/built-in.o kernel/sched.o kernel/fork.o kernel/exec_domain.o kernel/panic.o kernel/printk.o kernel/profile.o kernel/exit.o kernel/itimer.o kernel/time.o kernel/softirq.o kernel/resource.o kernel/sysctl.o kernel/capability.o kernel/ptrace.o

Hi, Going ahead, the llvm-ld seems to segfault (build on Linux with llvm-ld v3.0svn build): make[2]: Entering directory `/root/code/vmkit/mmtk/mmtk-j3' llvm[2]: Building Debug+Asserts Bytecode Module MMTKRuntime.bc 0 llvm-ld 0x0884c66e 1 llvm-ld 0x0884c3fb 2 0xb7891400 __kernel_sigreturn + 0 3 llvm-ld 0x083be9e9 llvm::isa_impl<llvm::Constant,

Hi, when I try to build libprofile with r80670 (both llvm and llvm-gcc) I get this error: make[1]: Entering directory `.../llvm-svn-debug-obj/runtime/libprofile' llvm[1]: Building Debug Bytecode Archive libprofile_rt.bca (internalize) llvm[1]: Installing Debug Shared Library /nfs/a5/astifter/astifter/llvm/llvm-svn-debug-obj/../llvm-svn-debug-install/lib/libprofile_rt.so 0 llvm-ld

Hi, I tried building again with the latest llvm. I am getting another seg fault: make[2]: Entering directory `/root/code/vmkit/mmtk/java' Buildfile: /root/code/vmkit/mmtk/java/build.xml main: [javac] /root/code/vmkit/mmtk/java/build.xml:4: warning: 'includeantruntime' was not set, defaulting to build.sysclasspath=last; set to false for repeatable builds [javac] Compiling 1