search for: aarch64asmprinter

...this wrong, but I'm getting a weird error in building LLVM > > with Clang via CMake. > > I have been debugging a similar issue that I isolated to r199484. The > issue surfaces for me as: > > /opt/centos/devtoolset-1.1/root/usr/bin/ld: > ../../lib/libLLVMAArch64CodeGen.a(AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp.o): relocation > R_X86_64_32 against `.rodata..L.str5' can not be used when making a > shared object; recompile with -fPIC > ../../lib/libLLVMAArch64CodeGen.a: could not read symbols: Bad value > clang-3.4: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to > see invoca...

...rch == Triple::ppc64 || - Arch == Triple::UnknownArch) && + Arch == Triple::UnknownArch || Arch == Triple::aarch64) && (T.isOSDarwin() || T.getEnvironment() == Triple::MachO)) { Env = IsMachO; InitMachOMCObjectFileInfo(T); diff --git a/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp b/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp index 759809f..2a38247 100644 --- a/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp +++ b/lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64AsmPrinter.cpp @@ -281,6 +281,8 @@ void AArch64AsmPrinter::EmitEndOfAsmFile(Module &M) { } Stubs.clear(); } + } else if...

Chandler, I may be doing this wrong, but I'm getting a weird error in building LLVM with Clang via CMake. On x86_64: $ CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -G Ninja ../../src/llvm -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_BUILD_TESTS=True -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=True On ARM: $ CC=clang CXX=clang++ cmake -G Ninja ../src/ -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../install

Hi all, As of r232885 I've removed the argument-less TargetMachine::getSubtarget and TargetMachine::getSubtargetImpl. For the targets that aren't completely independent of this I've gone ahead and left a non-virtual version of the function in the target specific TargetMachine. What this means in practice is that those targets can only use a bare getSubtarget call in their target

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "Robinson, Paul" <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. > While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, > there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. > Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and

I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and error-prone (or we wouldn't see so many violations in code reviews, eh?). Now, I understand that Google has some sort