similar to: Passing equations as arguments

Hi, I am upgrading my project from 3.7 to 3.8. I find that following code used to compile in 3.7 but doesn't in 3.8 and I can't understand why. llvm::Function *mainFunc = ...; auto argiter = mainFunc->arg_begin(); llvm::Value *arg1 = argiter++; arg1->setName("obj"); But if I change the code to following it compiles: auto argiter = mainFunc->arg_begin(); llvm::Value

I create a function with an empty signature: void llvm_start_new_function() { llvm::outs() << "Staring new LLVM function ...\n"; Mod = new llvm::Module("module", llvm::getGlobalContext()); builder = new llvm::IRBuilder<>(llvm::getGlobalContext()); llvm::FunctionType *funcType = llvm::FunctionType::get(builder->getVoidTy(), false);

Sorry to bother you about a S-Plus related problem, but I hope someone can help. I have tried to "translate" some code from R to S-Plus (I have colleague that insists on using S-Plus. And yes, I have tried to make him change to R...) The following code works out fine in R, but in S-Plus (S-PLUS 6.2 for Windows Professional Ed.) I get the error message "Problem in est.theta(x):

Hi Everyone, I would like to implement GCC ifunc attribute support in Clang and LLVM. At the moment Clang ignores the attribute with a warning. On LLVM IR level there is no support for ifunc. But there is some support for ELF symbol type `@gnu_indirect_function` in ELF reader/writer/target asm parser. This RFC is looking for thoughts and suggestions about representation of ifunc in LLVM IR.

Are you going to have to teach LLVM how to look through ifuncs, or is it OK if they are totally opaque? For example, with __attribute__((target)), you might have one target-specialized function call another. Is it important that we be able to optimize away the dynamic dispatch there or not? Either way, I think a new IR construct is the way to go. On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 11:44 AM, Rafael

If changing nothing else I would probably go with another list since that is what is done for functions/variables/aliases. Having said that, more than once I wished we had an easy way to iterate all GlobalValues or all GrobalObjects. Any thoughts on the tradeoff having a single list with pointer to the start of each sub list? Something like Func1 <-> Func2 <-> Var1 <-> Var2

I would like to support __attribute__((target)) later so ifunc won't be opaque for compiler generated dispatchers. Thank you all for the feedback! On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 8:49 AM, Eric Christopher via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I think 2 is the only reasonable answer. And to answer Reid's comment: > yes, it might be nice if we could look through it for

Hello, We've recently started using ifuncs in the x86(_64) FreeBSD kernel. Currently lld will emit a PLT entry for each ifunc, so ifunc calls are more expensive that those of regular functions. In our kernel, this overhead isn't really necessary: if lld instead emits PC-relative relocations for each ifunc call site, where each relocation references a symbol of type GNU_IFUNC, then during

I am trying to build a function (C++ Builder) and at the same time extend its parameter set. Here's what I try to do: Value* arg0 = add_param_float("arg0"); Value* tmp = builder->CreateFAdd(arg0,some_previous_value); Value* arg1 = add_param_float("arg1"); The function add_param_float should add a 'float' parameter to the function and return its value. Right

Hi, I just spent 4 hours trying to find a way to get the name of the resolver function of a ifunc definition ... :-( and with all that time I didnt event get far: for (GlobalIFunc &IF : M.ifuncs()) { StringRef ifunc_name = IF.getName(); Constant *r = IF.getResolver(); But how do I get to the (Function*) or function name of the resolver from there? I tried everything with the Constant

I was working on https://reviews.llvm.org/D81911 to try and fix https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46340 . Through the review process we happened upon a design limitation or perhaps a potential mis-modelling of GlobalIFunc in the IR object hierarchy, which leads to some problems in LTO flows. To summarize, as it currently stands (and in the hopes of faithfully representing the conclusions of

Hi, I work with bio-conductor, but this is probably a basic R question. I want to emulate the GOBPOFFSPRING$"GO:0008150" command: > allBP <- GOBPOFFSPRING$"GO:0008150" > class(allBP) [1] "character" > length(allBP) [1] 16066 > I want to create a function so that I can execute the command by passing as a parameter the portion in quotes in the above

I am trying to get a handle on IR builder, at least some basics. I ran through a tutorial here: Create a working compiler with the LLVM framework, Part 1 <http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-createcompilerllvm1/>, and it worked well enough. I have some simple code that creates a hello world IR. I am trying to now bring in some concepts from the Kaleidoscope tutorial, namely

> * Calling getBaseObject() on a GlobalIFunc returns its resolver function. I still don't understand how it can happen looking to the code ( https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Globals.cpp#L430). I believe it should return nullptr (the same as if you call it from GlobalAlias that refers to GlobalIFunc). I don't have a strong opinion here because deriving

In the context of support not only IFunc but DTrace, what kind of features do you want to add to lld, if you have a chance to implement it in the linker instead of a post-processing tool? I wonder if we can solve both of your problems. On Thu, Aug 23, 2018 at 1:33 AM Mark Johnston <markj at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 10:11:00AM -0400, Ed Maste wrote: > > On 22

Dear Friends, I'm trying to generate a sequence of 100 observations with either a 1 or -1. In other words the sequence should look something like this. y = 1 1 -1 1 -1 -1 -1 1 1 ...... Can somebody please give me some direction on how I can do this in R. Thanks Anup ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't get soaked. Take a

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Fangrui > Song via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 10:18 PM > To: Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for > representing function PLT

Dear Friends, I have data set with around 220,000 rows and 17 columns. One of the columns is an id variable which is grouped from 1000 through 9000. I need to perform the following operations. 1) Remove all the observations with id's between 6000 and 6999 I tried using this method. remdat1 <- subset(data, ID<6000) remdat2 <- subset(data, ID>=7000) donedat <- rbind(remdat1,

Hi, It looks like the the ELFPassFile doesnot get an ordinal value assigned, as its added in a pass. Is there a way to assign a file ordinal for the files added by Passes ? Till that time, I am going to XFAIL the ifunc test. More tests should fail, and am not sure why they are not failing. Thanks Shankar Easwaran -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted

Hello Tim, Thank you for getting back to me. The language grammar as defined by the LLVM Language Reference Manual [1] does not include the details of the LLVM IR parser reference implementation. The following extract from "lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp" illustrates that unnamed globals are allowed [2]. > /// ParseUnnamedGlobal: > /// OptionalVisibility (ALIAS | IFUNC) ...