search for: crafton

> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax > assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is > not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio > doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to write out .o > files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF

...n't really correct, it should also respect .bat and the user definable things. It imagine there is a Win32 function to help with this, but don't know what it is. The ideal approach is to make sure the function does exactly what cmd.exe does. - Daniel On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com> wrote: > I was just playing with llvm-ld, and noticed that it keeps giving me > errors that it can't find "llc", even though it's in the same > directory. This is running on windows, built with visual studio 2008. > Stepping through the...

I was recently trying to compile some bitcode generated like so: llc --x86-asm-syntax=intel test.out it generates a test.out.s file, and while I'm not much of an assembly person, it looks OK. When I feed this to ML ml test.out.s I get tons of errors, most of which appear to be syntax errors. Stuff like: test.out.s(2) : error A2008:syntax error : . error A2008:syntax error :

Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > I looked around a bit but couldn't find anything. The example on the > llvm site mentions being able to compile to C code, but when I try llc > -march=c test.out > > it errors out with: > error: invalid target 'c'. [...

Did pecoff support means we can linkage llvm generated obj files to msvc's obj files? 2010/1/22, Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com>: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax >> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio >>...

On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t >> syntax >> assemblers. It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and >> MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler. This is why visual >> studio &g...

Can someone with cygwin/mingw access tell me what .s file gcc compiles this .c file to: static int test[100]; void *x = &test; Thanks! -Chris

> By default, the cmake build generates Visual Studio project files for > the X86 target only. Take a look at > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars > > for learning how to build other targets. OK thanks, I'll look at that. In the meantime, is it possible to get the assembly generated by llc to work wiht ML? That would probably be the ideal solution. Cheers Jim

This is what I got from gcc -S t.c .file "t.c" .globl _x .data .align 4 _x: .long _test .lcomm _test,400 On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 4:07 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Can someone with cygwin/mingw access tell me what .s file gcc compiles > this .c file to: > > static int test[100]; > void *x = &test; > > Thanks! > > -Chris

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> By default, the cmake build generates Visual Studio project files for >> the X86 target only. Take a look at >> >> http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars >> >> for learning how to build other targets. > > OK thanks, I'll look at that. &...

...utput, the one thing it didn't like was the string variable. It complained about mov DWORD PTR [ESP], ($_.str) something about "$_.str" wasn't kosher. On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 5:56 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: > >>> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax >>> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM >>> is >>> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio >&g...

> Regarding the pecoff support - FASM comes with complete source and > what appears to be a BSD license. It outputs to pecoff. Assuming the > FASM code is readable and reasonably understandable, could this code Scratch all that, my mistake, it's all assembly. Cheers Jim