search for: addpassestoemitwholefil

...two steps can be made inside a ModulePass. The definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in straight C an asm block would be used to insert the...

Hi, I want to invoke the AddReadAttrs pass with my software backend (derived from TargetMachine like CBackend). CBackend uses addPassesToEmitWholeFile-method for invoking several passes. I tried to use the same method, but it failed on runtime. Running llc with my backend produces (mac os x 10.5 and llvm 2.4): dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: Symbol not found: __ZN4llvm22createAddReadAttrsPassEv Referenced from: /myproject/build/Release...

...ModulePass. The definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass >> manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. >> However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A >> (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements >> AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage >> this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? >> >> I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar >> approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in >> straight C...

...></li> +</ul></li> </ul> </div> There were others, which are not documented, but I'm not sure I understand completely the change, so probably someone else should reword that to fit in ReleaseNotes.html: - New argument DisableVerify to llvm::TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitWholeFile (it has a default value, but one must update the declaration of redefinition of this function in derived classes). - TargetAsmInfo changed to MCAsmInfo in back-end writters. -- Matthieu Moy http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

...e > inside a ModulePass. The definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass > manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. > However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A > (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements > AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage > this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? > > I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar > approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in > straight C an asm block would...

Hi folks, just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no longer worked. It seems something has changed with addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to use that there is no output (only an empty file). I tried changing to code to use a FunctionPassManager, but that then requires the run() call to be changed to individual functions, and I am not convinced I want to do...

...ModulePass. The definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass >> manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. >> However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A >> (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements >> AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage >> this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? >> >> I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar >> approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in >> straight C...

...e > inside a ModulePass. The definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass > manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. > However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A > (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements > AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage > this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? > > I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar > approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in > straight C an asm block would...

...definition of TargetMachine allows for any pass >>> manager deriving form BasicPass to be passed to AddPassesToEmitFile. >>> However, I see that llc uses a FunctionPassManager for all the passes. A >>> (module)PassManager is used only if the target implements >>> AddPassesToEmitWholeFile but the comments on the base class discourage >>> this path. Am I approaching the problem the wrong way? >>> >>> I haven't worked much on case b) but my idea was to use a similar >>> approach but instead of writing the built-in function implementation in &gt...

Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Things still needed are marked with FIXMEs. These include: 1. Clang needs a blurb describing what's new in 2.7. Have the clang folks been doing anything for the last 6 months? 2. I

Hi folks, just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no longer worked. It seems something has changed with addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to use that there is no output (only an empty file). I tried changing to code to use a FunctionPassManager, but that then requires the run() call to be changed to individual functions, and I am not convinced I want to do...

...lt;/ul> > > </div> > > There were others, which are not documented, but I'm not sure I > understand completely the change, so probably someone else should > reword that to fit in ReleaseNotes.html: > > - New argument DisableVerify to > llvm::TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitWholeFile (it has a default > value, but one must update the declaration of redefinition of this > function in derived classes). > > - TargetAsmInfo changed to MCAsmInfo in back-end writters. > > -- > Matthieu Moy > http://www-verimag.imag.fr/~moy/

...just installed the new llvm 1.9 build and noticed that my code no > longer worked. It seems something has changed with > addPassesToEmitFile(). First, the arguments to that method changed so > that it no longer takes a PassManager, but only a > FunctionPassManager. Instead there is a addPassesToEmitWholeFile() > method, but that is marked as optional, and when I change my code to > use that there is no output (only an empty file). Right, you want to use addPassesToEmitFile if you want the native code generators to work. > I tried changing to code to use a FunctionPassManager, but that then...