similar to: [llvm] To link or not to link

Hi Geoff, hi Alex If you implement the GDB JIT Interface in your Orc JIT, this is in general possible (at least from the JIT's point of view) with both debuggers, GDB and LLDB. Please have a look at the example here: https://github.com/weliveindetail/JitFromScratch/tree/jit-debug/gdb-interface You will probably need to adjust the code depending on the LLVM version you are using. As described

Tried that, still didn't work. Then I tried making a direct API call, GetProcAddress(GetModuleHandle(0),"foo") And this works if and only if __declspec(dllexport) is supplied. So it looks like we were both right. On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 9:29 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Have you tried to add dllexport? > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM

ok i have managed to compile using lli (jit) as follows: but i dont get assembly file? my sum-main.c file is: #include <stdio.h> #include<stdlib.h> int sum(int a, int b) { return a + b; } int main(int argc, char** argv) { printf("sum: %d\n", sum(atoi(argv[1]), atoi(argv[2])) + sum(atoi(argv[1]), atoi(argv[2]))); return 0; } and i used the following steps to compile. clang

Hello LLVM team, our software FluidSIM (www.fluidsim.de) simulates pneumatic, hydraulic and electric circuits. For the mathematical models we use the language Modelica (www.modelica.org). We developed our own Modelica simulator which solves the dynamical created algebraic differential equation systems. One tool is our small JIT compiler, which compiles mathematical expressions like “2*x0 +

Hi all, I am having hard time figuring out how I should use the API for JIT in LLVM 6. In LLVM 3.9 I am used to adding all objects at once and emitAndFinalizing them all: handle = objectLayer.addObjectSet(objectFiles, memoryManager, resolver); objectLayer.emitAndFinalize(handle); In LLVM 6.0 the objects are added one by one: auto handle = objectLayer.addObject(objectFile, resolver).get();

Greetings, LLVM wizards. I was just wondering if any progress has been made on this issue in the last few months (using gdb to debug a module compiled by Orc). I had to move to the Orc API in order to be able to call modules' constructors and destructors as needed, but I would quite like to be able to debug and profile the resulting code as well... Thanks, Geoff -------------- next part

Hi all, hi Lang It's a little late to report issues for release_50, but I just found that thing while porting my JitFromScratch examples to 5.0. This is a really nifty detail, but (if I'm not mistaken) the function signature of RTDyldObjectLinkingLayer::NotifyLoadedFtor is incorrect: $ grep -h -r -A 1 "using NotifyLoadedFtor"

Hi, I'm attempting to port some code which uses the GlobalMappingLayer in the Orc JIT. This code worked fine in LLVM 4, but I'm getting a compile error with LLVM 5. I think the problem is that this layer hasn't been modified to account for some of the changes made in LLVM 5, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't missing something. I have code which looks like this:

Hi Brian, Yes - I believe you're correct. I'm working on a fix and extra test coverage now. In the meantime, I believe you should be able to fix the signatures in your copy and everything should "just work". Cheers, Lang. On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Brian Kahne via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > > I’m attempting to port

If I use a simple dtrace script such as this: fbt::somefunc:entry{self->trace=1;} fbt::somefunc:return{self->trace=0;} fbt:::entry{} fbt:::return{printf("%lx", arg1);} then it will descend to whatever depth is necessary If I want to limit it to say 3 functions deep, how can I do that? The quick answer I want to use is to do "self->depth++" on each entry and then

Hi, suppose I do: b <- matrix(1:9,3,3) bname <- "b" now dim(b) returns [1] 3 3 and dim(bname) returns NULL is there a function to pass bname to such that dim returns the dimensions of b? like dim(somefunc(bname)) returns [1] 3 3 does 'somefunc' exist? daver +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ |David Richmond It

On Mon, Jul 31, 2017 at 8:19 AM Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Lang, hi David, thanks for looking into this. > > > > Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the > nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? > > In my own code yes, not in LLVM ;) I'd like to run it on a large example,

Hello Lang, so you are part of the "Jitter-Team"? I'm really interested in this whole jitting-process. I wanted to know, is there a way to load other obj-files, than the one created with clang? Could I load - for example - a obj-File from VisualStudio? Or will the namemangeling fail? Kind regards Björn From: Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> To: bjoern.gaier at

Hi Stefan, David, This is very interesting stuff - it adds a dimension of error security that Error/Expected can't provide on their own. I think it would be interesting to try to build a tool around this. Did you identify many cases where "real work" (in your example, the nullptr dereference" was being done in an error branch? My suspicion is that that should be rare, but that

Hi all, Just looking over fole_s_connect() in win32ole.c and I noticed this bit: hr = CLSIDFromProgID(pBuf, &clsid); ... hr = GetActiveObject(&clsid, 0, &pUnknown); ... hr = pUnknown->lpVtbl->QueryInterface( pUnknown, &IID_IDispatch, (void **)&pDispatch ); Using win32-api, that would be something like: IID_IUnknown =

Hello, this is a call for feedback: opinions, improvements, testers.. I use the support classes Expected<T> and ErrorOr<T> quite often recently and I like the concept a lot! Thanks Lang btw! However, from time to time I found issues in the execution paths of my error cases and got annoyed by their naturally low test coverage. So I started sketching a test that runs all error paths

I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can anyone explain this? Thanks define i32 @somefunc(i32 (i32)* %ptr) nounwind uwtable { entry: %ptr.addr = alloca i32 (i32)*,

Yes definitely, testing a small piece of code like the GlobPattern::create() example, it would mostly indicate missing unit tests or insufficient test data. In contrast to unit tests, however, it can also verify correct handling of errors passed between function call hierarchies in more complex scenarios. For this I should point to the other example in the code, where it's applied to

Hello, I'm not sure how to state my question in a technically accurate manner, so I'll use a short example to clarify my problem: Say I have a vector, vec<-c(1,2,3,2) I would like to be able to "reference" the vector by using the string containing the name of the vector - that is, I would like to know of some function which is able to convert the string "vec"

> I created a plugin to add simple Annotations to VarDecls and > FieldDecls, and write this modified AST out to a file. I notice that > when I use clang to compile this file I get different code then when I > use the source directly. In both cases I'm compiling with -O4. Can > anyone explain this? This is how clang implements annotations on local variables, that's all.