similar to: Modified LLVM IR

Hi, I want to call/add some functions(that defined in another file) on top of some functions, and reflect the same changes in object file. No, I am not looking for contractor. Thanks, Deepika On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 7:04 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > What is the condition for adding this code? > > What have you tried so far? [Or are you looking for a

Hi, Yes I am looking for IR pass that will do insert call of functions that defined in another file. Links/suggestions that guide me to start for adding IR pass will help me so much. Regards, Deepika On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 1:03 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > So how do you know what you want to modify (conceptually)? > > Have you got a IR pass that you

Hi, My requirement is something like as given below, a.c => a.obj contains a1() and a2() function b.c => b.obj contains b1() and b2() function main.c => main.obj call to a1, a2, b1, b2 Now, I want to move a1(), a2() from a.obj to b2.obj and on top of function b1() When I call b1() from main, it should call first a1, a2 and then function definition of b1 Can you please give me some

Hi, Please consider the following : > x = as.integer(2^30-1) [1] 1073741823 > sum(c(rep(x, 10000000), rep(-x,9999999))) [1] 1073741824 Tested on 2.15.2 and a recent R-devel (r62132). I'm wondering if s in isum could be LDOUBLE instead of double, like rsum, to fix this edge case? https://svn.r-project.org/R/trunk/src/main/summary.c Thanks, Matthew

I'm trying to create a language structure that is a call to a function with a number of arguments that is only known at run time. I do this by using repeated indices to expand out a call with a single argument. However, when I change one of the arguments, all are changed. I don't see the same behavior when I initially create a call with multiple arguments. Even more strangely,

I tried to compile this snippet of C++ code: void FuncTest() {     int* a = new int;     int* b = new int[2]; } using: clang test.cpp -S -emit-llvm -o - > test.llvm and obtained this: define void @_Z8FuncTestv() { entry:   %a = alloca i32*, align 4   %b = alloca i32*, align 4   %call = call noalias i8* @_Znwj(i32 4)   %0 = bitcast i8* %call to i32*   store i32* %0, i32** %a, align 4  

I am working with some survival data with missing values. I am using the mice package to do multiple imputation. I have found code in this thread which handles pooling of the MI results: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-help/2007-May/132180.html Now I would like to plot a survival curve using the pooled results. Here is a reproducible example: require(survival) require(mice) set.seed(2) dt

Thanks. isFreeCall() works well but for %call2 = call i32 bitcast (i32 (...)* @free to i32 (i8*)*)(i8* %call1) nounwind, !dbg !16 So I tried to figure out when the above instruction occurred. When <stdlib.h> is included, free(buf2R1); turn into call void @free(i8* %call1) nounwind, !dbg !16 when I forget to include <stdlib.h>, free(buf2R1); turn into %call2 = call i32 bitcast (i32

R-helpers: I have a dataset that has 168 subjects and 12 variables. Some of the variables have missing data and I want to use the multiple imputation capabilities of the "mice" package to address the missing data. Given that mice only supports linear models and generalized linear models (via the lm.mids and glm.mids functions) and that I need to fit Cox models, I followed the previous

if you don't include stdlib.h, where free() is declared, you'll simply get a default C function signature: int free(...); On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:56 AM, Jane <270611649 at qq.com> wrote: > Thanks. isFreeCall() works well but for > %call2 = call i32 bitcast (i32 (...)* @free to i32 (i8*)*)(i8* %call1) > nounwind, !dbg !16 > So I tried to figure out when the above

Hi! I want to know the way that calls are answer in this case... I have queue1 and queue2, one agent that receive call from both queues. queue1 <- call1 queue1 <- call2 queue2 <- call3 queue2 <- call4 In my test the agent answer calls in this order: call1,call3,call2 and call4. I think this must be in this order call1,call2, call3, call4 like a big FIFO. Its ok this behavior? Could

I''m having a problem with multiple Ajax.Updater instances. I have five small chunks of data being loaded into my homepage, and they seem to be firing off one at a time. So the pieces load up in the order they were called. Maybe I''m being a noob, but shouldn''t all those requests just fire away and then place the content as it gets received? I was doing multiple versions,

On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > However it seems that if a landingpad-block has multiple predecessors (often the case, > multiple InvokeInst in the main body of a try-statement all go to the same landingpad- > block), then you cannot move the LandingpadInst in order to break a critical edge unless > you do it for _all_ landingpad-block predecessor edges

Philip Reames wrote: >> 1. Introduce aAny. > > Having a generic any type seems fine. I assume you'd create something like > an llvm_any_type in Intrinsics.td? That's precisely what ifavpAny is about: integer, float, array, vector, pointer Any. aAny is meant for array-Any, and I wonder why so few people care about arrays. I'll go ahead with Any and llvm_any_type.

On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:36 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: >> arm-none-linux-gnueabi > > Indeed, adding -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi I also get Minor remark: please use -target instead of -ccc-host-triple that is now deprecated. Thanks for looking at this testcase. Sebastian -- Qualcomm

On Thu, 2012-01-26 at 15:36 -0600, Sebastian Pop wrote: > arm-none-linux-gnueabi Indeed, adding -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi I also get vectorization (even though I don't get vectorization when targeting x86_64). I'll let you know what I find. -Hal -- Hal Finkel Postdoctoral Appointee Leadership Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory

Guys, on second thought... doesn't making the exception registers live from the InvokeInst to the LandingpadInst create problems for critical-edge-splitting ? if a landingpad-edge is critical and needs to be split, won't we be creating and inserting a new BB between the "invoke-block" and the "landingpad-block", and if we do then isn't there the

This is my example (for.c): #include <stdio.h> int add(int a, int b) { return a + b; } int main() { int a, b, c, d; a = 5; b = 15; c = add(a, b); d = 0; for(int i=0;i<16;i++) d = add(c, d); } I run: $ clang -O0 -Xclang -disable-O0-optnone -emit-llvm for.c -S -o forO0.ll $ opt -O0 -S --loop-unroll --unroll-count=4 -view-cfg forO0.ll -o for-opt00-unroll4.ll

As others have mentioned, C++ mangles names (i.e., it changes the name of a symbol into a string that contains both the name, scope, and type of the variable or function), so if you know what the mangled name is of your allocator, you can recognize it. Additionally, I believe that functions with return values marked with the noalias attribute are, essentially, memory allocators because the

getFunction() -> getPointerToFunction() 2014-06-29 6:40 GMT+03:00 Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>: > Hi Adrian, > > freeMachineCodeForFunction is required but recompileAndLinkFunction is > not, > you can use getFunction() always. > > Try to M->dump() calling M->getFunction() where M is the Module *. > See if how the changes appear in the module