search for: cc1options

I'm trying to add a new option to clang to enable my auto profile pass. I've added this to Options.td and Driver/Tools.cpp, but I'm not getting the option -auto-profile in cc1's invocation. I've checked that the code to push -auto-profile is executed, but if use -v, I don't see -auto-profile in the cc1 invocation. Can anyone point me to some document that explains how to

Hello all! I have found following empty files that get installed (v3.4rc2) : docs/llvm/html/Dummy.html include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.h What is the story behind them? Or were they just forgotten? Can we (someone) remove these? Cheers, Gabor

You are calling the option -auto-profile in some places and -fauto-profile in others. Maybe it is just a typo? On 1 October 2013 15:31, Diego Novillo <dnovillo at google.com> wrote: > I'm trying to add a new option to clang to enable my auto profile > pass. I've added this to Options.td and Driver/Tools.cpp, but I'm not > getting the option -auto-profile in cc1's

Hi, I have been writing a hobbie code generator for a plc with clang as a front end and I wanted to know how can I get clang to accept a new code generator option, and how to get it through to the code generator. I found something that could be it on an llvm include "TargetOptions" but I have no idea how to use it (if it is actually correct). Thanks

...1, 0) ///< Run loop vectorizer. CODEGENOPT(VectorizeSLP , 1, 0) ///< Run SLP vectorizer. +CODEGENOPT(IsPreIPO , 1, 0) ///< Indicate in pre-IPO phase /// Attempt to use register sized accesses to bit-fields in structures, when /// possible. Index: include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.td =================================================================== --- include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.td (revision 187135) +++ include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.td (working copy) @@ -210,6 +210,8 @@ HelpText<"Run the SLP vectorization passes">; def vectorize_slp_aggressive :...

Andy and I briefly discussed this the other day, we have not yet got chance to list a detailed pass order for the pre- and post- IPO scalar optimizations. This is wish-list in our mind: pre-IPO: based on the ordering he propose, get rid of the inlining (or just inline tiny func), get rid of all loop xforms... post-IPO: get rid of inlining, or maybe we still need it, only

Hello, I have tried a lot fix this error but am not able to can you please find me a solution am trying to compile the SAFECode in Cygwin Environment to work for windows. used make -j4 command to make the files in cygwin i have got this error make[5]: Leaving directory '/home/uidr7475/Work/LLVM_OBJ/projects/safecode/tools/clang/include' /usr/bin/cp: cannot stat

...via the diagnostics layer, > source locations). > > This will require some decoupling between the Clang driver and frontend > (currently Clang's Options.td contains various driver options that are > marked as also being options for Clang's -cc1 mode; duplicating those in > CC1Options.td is probably acceptable, if we're going to split the driver > and frontend into two different projects), and some shared support code > (eg, clang's sanitizers list) will presumably end up in the driver, because > we don't want a driver -> *lang dependency. > Also stro...

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: >> >> Agreed. Although I assume you mean invoke the new pass under a >> ThinLTO-only option so that avail extern are not dropped in the >> compile pass before the LTO link? > > > No, this pass

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 3:58 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > Personally, I think the right approach is to add a bool to > createGlobalDCEPass defaulting to true named something like > IsAfterInlining. In most standard pass pipelines, GlobalDCE runs after > inlining for obvious reasons, so the default makes sense. The special case > is

Talked to Eric Fri and he suggested that this might be the first of several places where we want behavior of LTO compiles to diverge from normal -O2 compiles. So for now I have implemented this such that we pass down -flto to the -cc1 job, and that gets propagated as a code gen option and into the PassManagerBuilder. I have left the current logic translating -flto to the -emit-llvm-bc option,

...locations). > > This will require some decoupling between the Clang driver and > frontend (currently Clang's Options.td contains various driver > options that are marked as also being options for Clang's -cc1 > mode; duplicating those in CC1Options.td is probably acceptable, > if we're going to split the driver and frontend into two > different projects), and some shared support code (eg, clang's > sanitizers list) will presumably end up in the driver, because > we don't want a driver -&...

*TL;DR* We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable further work on Flang driver. *SUMMARY* We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by non-C-based languages to LLVM. From our initial investigation we see that these

> ... math errno ... I wouldn't recommend to anyone that they should rely on math errno (because I don't trust libraries to correctly support it). My goal here was to incorporate our existing support for it into the rest of what I'm trying to document. My understanding is that for clang this primarily controls whether or not we feel free to substitute intrinsics for recognized

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive