similar to: [LLVMdev] unsupported GC: shadow-stack when using MCJIT

Thanks, Philip. I have a sinking feeling it's not your change, but could you share the commit and so I can try it out locally? Bug: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=23095 The reason I think it is not your change is because I tried a shared library build of LLVM 3.5.1 and that also failed with this error. Maybe it is because I'm using a package that makes an LLVM DLL for Windows.

This is also happening when using the C++ APIs. It looks like an MCJIT and SetGC interaction. I'm lost on how to proceed further. On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > The erlang was a typo, I was trying things out. > > I've updated the bug with a C program, which exhibits the problem. > > To answer your question,

On 03/31/2015 09:52 PM, Philip Reames wrote: > >> Maybe it is because I'm using a package that makes an LLVM DLL for >> Windows. >> >> The only reason why it show that error is if the static constructor >> for it didn't run, right? And I don't know why it would not run. > I need to take a closer look at your bug report before I can really >

I'm trying to add gcoot functionality to my code and I'm confused by why gcroot is assuming to be an i8** I'm using i32 as object and array pointers and if I make them i8 things seem to work. I'm generating IR much like http://llvm.org/docs/GarbageCollection.html#llvm-ir-features void @llvm.gcroot(i8** %ptrloc, i8* %metadata) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Thanks, David. I'd be happy to add the bindings .. is there a general way we add them? Or do you just scrub the API and make sensible judgements to the API? On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 1:55 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com > > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I

Are you saying the textual form of IR can change, but bitcode doesn't? I don't know what you mean by assembly syntax. Is there a changlog entry when the textual IR changes? On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 5:22 AM, Jeremy Lakeman <Jeremy.Lakeman at gmail.com> wrote: > Assembly syntax can and will break between versions. But bitcode should > generally be upgradeable, or a bug should

Upon reading http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html it says I can build shared libs, but when going to the CMake doc ( http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html) it says Shared libraries are not supported on Windows and not recommended for other OSes. Is there a reason why? At least for on Windows. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I was wondering if there is someone already working on putting the new OrcJIT APIs in the LLVM-C bindings? Also, is there a general consensus to also add C bindings when new major features are added? Hayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150201/061f5949/attachment.html>

This is my module's dump, which is different than yours. I wonder how I can get the external thing for my function. define double @sum(double, double) { entry: call void @FooBar() %tmp = fadd double %0, %1 ret double %tmp } ; ModuleID = 'My_Module' define double @sum(double, double) { entry: call void @FooBar() %tmp = fadd double %0, %1 ret double %tmp } declare void

Thanks, Reid. I'm not an optimization expert, but as a workaround, can I do the following: void myFunction() { int local = global; .. use local ... } ? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > This came up in the past for GHC, and we recommended passing it as a > parameter everywhere, as it lets the register allocator spill it under high

Can we accept the patch which makes this work? There is a patch in the bug report for the MCJIT case. I'm confused why AOT and MCJIT case would be different but without it the information isn't registered. On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 9:07 AM, Reid Kleckner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > If you want an AOT linker and you don't want to use link.exe, you can use

Can we also codify when something should be added to the C API? For a lot of folks the C API is the only usable interface. I am one of them. We are not as vocally represented because don't generally give back to the community, usually because we are just consumers of this library. (Or maybe I'm totally wrong and lots of us give back). For example, ORC APIs in C the bindings. On Fri, Jul

Historically? I implemented support for exceptions back in LLVM 3.3, before LLVM had an implementation of a Windows unwinder. Currently? As recent as LLVM 4.0, I don't think the JIT was fully capable of handling COFF files, and LLVM wouldn't emit the correct sections (with the COFF-formatted unwind tables) when used in ELF mode. The prolog is known to be standard since Julia disables FPO

I've just started using the llvm-pdbutil tool. Great job on the general tool. But I'm having trouble figuring out how the output of the dump tool relates to real addresses in memory or for that matter relative virtual address either. Here's the logic I tried (which doesn't work): (1) Get Instruction Pointer of interest (2) Subtract the base address of the dll that address

Lang, aren't you going to be the major (only?) player when it comes to Orc APIs, if you're not opposed to it having them in the C bindings proper will certainly help. That's my vote, I understand it is different from the previous cases but the API surface area here is relatively small. On Mon, Sep 7, 2015 at 5:37 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Jauhien, >

I will build LLVM locally, debug and report back. On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 2:47 AM, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > I've just started using the llvm-pdbutil tool. Great job on the general tool. > > But I'm having trouble figuring out how the output of the dump tool > relates to real addresses in memory or for that matter relative > virtual address

Is it safe to assume that LLVM IR will live more-or-less the same for most releases, and that significant changes will be communicated? Or is it something that can change at any time and you must not rely on it ever being same. To me, it seems like the IR has evolved slowly but no spectacularly large changes were made in the 1-1.5 years I've been watching it, -- sure some experimental patch

Another question: Lang, when do you think it'll be ok to move it to the C Bindings? On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 6:39 PM, Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > I agree. ExecutionEngine, in its current form, is unhelpful. I'd be in > favor of cutting the common interface back to something like: > > class ExecutionEngine { > public: > virtual

I'm having a problem of being unable to call into an arbitrary function that is loaded into memory whose pointer address is known to me but was not linked into LLVM. I have added the function and called LLVMAddGlobalMapping with the pointer, and the program segfaults. I was wondering if it is a supported scenario that LLVM can generate a call into an arbitrary function that is not linked.

Hello, I was wondering if there is an example list somewhere of whole program optimizations done by LLVM based compilers? I'm only familiar with method-level optimizations, and I'm being told wpo can deliver many great speedups. My language is currently staticly typed JIT based and uses the JVM, and I want to move it over to LLVM so that I can have options where it can be ahead of time