similar to: what became LLC -march=cpp?

Hi everyone, After spending 2 months on LLVM generally speaking and more specifically on security passes (ASan, SAFECode, BoundsChecking) I wanted to know if there were an available implementation of strictly fat-pointer based approach to enforce bounds? If not, I wanted to implement one. I think it is interessant to have such a tool available even if there are better designs (SoftBound does

Hi, Thanks both of you for the help. I just missed that Create function had many optional arguments... sorry for that. However my problem wasn't coming from here (IRBuilder CreateCall function still return a pointer to CallInst so I just added 2 times the call?). I didn't wanted to detail the all issue previously because I knew I had a problem with my syntax. So here's my problem: I

Hello > I've been exploring thread local globals in llvm and as part of this investigation I ran llc -march=cpp over a trivial llvm bc file which uses thread local storage for a global. For some reason llc -march=cpp seems to ignore the thread_local and produce code to create a standard global. Is this expected behaviour, a known limitation, or otherwise? Thanks for the report. Should be

Thanks for the quick reply and fix. Now it just means I have to hunt further in exploring why, in my simple test program, replacing the following line of code: GlobalVariable* global = new GlobalVariable(*MyModule, IntegerType::get(getGlobalContext(), 32), false, GlobalValue::ExternalLinkage, 0, "global"); with the following line of code: GlobalVariable* global = new

> int (*FP)() = (int (*)())FPtr; > int res = FP(); > > when the function executes correctly in the case of instead having created a standard global variable. What is the platform you're running the code on? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

> I note also that this is not a currently unsupported target case where an error should/could/would be produced on attempting to emit code with thread local references. I say this because clang is able to compile both c source with __thread on a global and bc containing a @variable = thread_local global ... and a function that references the thread local global variable to both assembly and

When I run the following example, I get this error: LLVM ERROR: Invalid instruction Replacing C++ with trivial hello world makes it work. rev.147747 Yuri --- example (please save as .sh file) --- #!/bin/sh cat >f.C <<_END_ extern void xthrowingx(); extern void xcatchingx_char(char c); extern void xcatchingx_int(int i); extern void xcatchingx_all(); void f() { try {

Hi, I'm really a novice in experimenting with LLVM, so I might be doing something plain wrong here, but I can't understand why this snippet // File ticket.cpp struct ticket { int field1; char field2[10]; } _ticket; goes fine through the sequence 1) clang++ -O0 -S -emit-llvm ticket.cpp (which generates ticket.s) 2) llc -march=cpp ticket.s So that I end up with a ticket.s.cpp that I

I note also that this is not a currently unsupported target case where an error should/could/would be produced on attempting to emit code with thread local references. I say this because clang is able to compile both c source with __thread on a global and bc containing a @variable = thread_local global ... and a function that references the thread local global variable to both assembly and machine

target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" On 13/05/2010, at 9:25 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> int (*FP)() = (int (*)())FPtr; >> int res = FP(); >> >> when the function executes correctly in the case of instead having created a standard global variable. > What is the platform you're running the code on? > > -- > With best regards, Anton

It seems that -march=cpp is broken. the -march=cpp is very useful for people trying to understand the builder API. But, if the output of -march=cpp does not even compile, it obviously creates code that is broken, so defeats the object of helping people understand the builder API. Why isn't -march=cpp tested at all? See detail below. Kind Regards James Take a very simple example:

Hi all, I've been exploring thread local globals in llvm and as part of this investigation I ran llc -march=cpp over a trivial llvm bc file which uses thread local storage for a global. For some reason llc -march=cpp seems to ignore the thread_local and produce code to create a standard global. Is this expected behaviour, a known limitation, or otherwise? Thanks in advance. Details are as

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use

Sorry, glad I'm in the right place. Before I start, I want to state that I'm a beginer and I'm trying to develop a backend by adapting an existent target to my platform. My first doubt is about the SelectionDAG and the TargetLowering class. When I use, for example: setOperationAction(ISD::ADD, MVT::i1, Promote); Is it correct to say that I'm promoting any operand used by the

Thanks, indeed it was on the LegalizeDAG.cpp and the information proved very useful. I also realized that the customization, promotion or expansion will occur whenever any operand, with the same type as the type specified on the second argument (MVT) of setOperationAction function, appears. (Correct me if I'm wrong). The second doubt I have regards instruction matching. When I define a

I was reading in the Reference Manual about Extract.data.frame. There is a list of examples of expressions using [ and [[, with the outcomes. I was puzzled by the fact that, if sw is a data frame, then sw[, 1:3] is also a data frame, but sw[, 1] is just a vector. Since R has no scalars, it must be the case that 1 and 1:1 are the same: > 1 == 1:1 [1] TRUE Then why isn't sw[,1] =

Where should the setClass() ('methods' package) calls be placed in a package? I try to follow a one-class-one-file principe, but since setClass("ClassA", "ClassB") has to come a after setClass("ClassB", [snip]) it is not possible to fully follow this rule. So the best I can do now is to put all setClass() calls in a file named "000.R" (I know this

On 14 July 2016 at 20:07, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 14, 2016, at 7:58 AM, Pierre Gagelin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am trying to use the CloneFunction from llvm/Transforms/Utils/Cloning.h > and I don't understand how the ValueToValueMapTy argument should be > initialized. For instance,

Hello sir, I'm having some problems understading how llvm works. I'm following a concrete example and visualizing the DAG and the .s output and some stuff doesn´t seem to match. I sorry to bother you but I don´t know where I can expose my doubts and I wonder if you could redirect me to some discussion place where someone might help me. Thanks, Patosga

Hi everyone, I am having troubles but this shouldn't be hard to solve for many people here. I am beginning a runtime feature for the BoundsChecking pass and I want to replace the libc malloc&free. I followed the design of AddressSanitizer (Asan) and tried to use the INTERCEPTOR macro from the interception.h file of compiler-rt library. Here is the problem. The file I modify