[LLVMdev] 2nd attempt for a working patch for bug 2606

Jeffrey Yasskin jyasskin at google.com
Fri Feb 26 13:02:51 PST 2010

[sidenote: Please try to avoid extraneous whitespace and line wrapping
changes in your patches. It makes it harder to see what you're actually

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Olivier,
> On Feb 25, 2010, at 14:10, Olivier Meurant wrote:
> Hi Garrison,
> I finally come back from holidays and take time to watch your patch.
> I must say that I largely prefer this version over the previous one ! I
> like the reuse of getLazyFunctionStub, but I don't know if the
> forceEmitFunctionStub is still needed ?
> JIT::forceEmitFunctionStub(...) was created to bring its implementation
> into JITEmitter file scope as JITResolver and
> therefore JITResolver::getLazyFunctionStub(...) are members of an anonymous
> namespace in that scope. However
> I can instead use a pre-existing method: getPointerToFunctionOrStub(...)
> which is declared in ExecutionEngine
> and overwritten in JIT (within JITEmitter file scope). ...

Have you tried the existing pending functions mechanism? I don't want to
introduce stubs in eager compilation mode, and I don't think you have to.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100226/b04377dd/attachment.html>

More information about the llvm-dev mailing list