search for: force_inlin

Thanks for the quick reply. I had a feeling that it was due to missing Windows support in clang++ and LLVM. """ This is due to clang not understanding force_inline. These functions are defined in a header included from Windows.h, so it ends up getting a definition everywhere it is included. """ How much work would it take to add support for force_inline? Are there any plans for when/if it will be supported? I don't know anything about f...

Now I recall what the problem was that I had: My code makes use of the Win32 API and that means pulling in Windows.h, which again pulls in some headers that make use of the force_inline thingy, which is not supported under Windows yet. I guess if I stuck with portable code, I could probably use Clang for Windows. Once again, I have to visit the thinking box and figure out what to do. But thanks for the description of how to do this. It is surely going to save both me and othe...

...e InterlockedBitTestAndSet anywhere in my code and the same goes > for the rest of the symbols that are being warned about. > > After that, I get a ton of errors form the linker because it complains about > the above symbols already being defined. This is due to clang not understanding force_inline. These functions are defined in a header included from Windows.h, so it ends up getting a definition everywhere it is included. > I also get a few errors like this: > > Bitset_test-423377.o : error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol > __ZTVN10__cxxabiv120__si_class_type_infoE > &g...

Hi again again, I'm trying to build my compiler frontend in C++ on Windows 7 x64 using clang++.exe. I want to use clang++ for my project so that I get a feel for how mature and usable the Windows support is as I gradually get up to speed with LLVM for Windows. I could develop on Linux, but I need the Windows support so I figure I might as well do it the hard way. My code is fairly simple

Hello Mikael, > Now I recall what the problem was that I had: My code makes use of the Win32 > API and that means pulling in Windows.h, which again pulls in some headers > that make use of the force_inline thingy, which is not supported under > Windows yet. Or you can use windows.h from mingw :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 6:12 PM, Mikael Lyngvig <mikael at lyngvig.org> wrote: > Thanks for the quick reply.  I had a feeling that it was due to missing > Windows support in clang++ and LLVM. > > """ > This is due to clang not understanding force_inline. These functions > are defined in a header included from Windows.h, so it ends up getting > a definition everywhere it is included. > """ > > How much work would it take to add support for force_inline?  Are there any > plans for when/if it will be supported?  I do...

...ed were no longer being inlined after the change. (That's just > annecdotal, of course: LLVM may have gotten good enough to make it > practical. If that's the case, I still think it's too early to write C > ++ code with that assumption.) > There is often a keyword force_inline or alwais_inline if needed Cédric

...quot;non obvious" to inline but you want to force it to be inlined. Usually this is because your are tuning your application and note that you get better performance by inlining. I assume the III is what you're really worried about, so I will explain why I think that a "force_inline" directive on functions is a bad idea. 1. First, this property is something that varies on a *CALL SITE* basis, not on a callee basis. If you really want this, you should be annotating call sites, not functions. 2. These annotations are non-portable across different compilers and ev...

...to inline but you want to force it to be > inlined. Usually this is because your are tuning your application > and note that you get better performance by inlining. > > I assume the III is what you're really worried about, so I will > explain why I think that a "force_inline" directive on functions is a > bad idea. > > 1. First, this property is something that varies on a *CALL SITE* basis, > not on a callee basis. If you really want this, you should be > annotating call sites, not functions. > 2. These annotations are non-portable acros...

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 07:42:12PM +0200, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers? Isn't this a > serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++? Is there any work > in progress on this? It provides the compiler-centric headers. It doesn't replace the rest of the C runtime library. That wouldn't make much sense. Joerg

...pixman-0.13.2.tar.bz2 GPG signature: http://cairographics.org/releases/pixman-0.13.2.tar.gz.sha1.asc (signed by <>) Git: git://git.freedesktop.org/git/pixman tag: pixman-0.13.2 Log: Adrian Bunk (1): Rename the current ARM code to ARM SIMD Alan Coopersmith (1): Define force_inline for compilers other than gcc & MS Visual C Benjamin Otte (3): force alignment of arg pointer in potential SSE users update .gitignore unswitch red and blue David M?ller (1): Move _mm_empty() to correct place David Woodhouse (1): Less fragile Linux al...

...nlined after the change. >> (That's just annecdotal, of course: LLVM may have gotten good >> enough to make it practical. If that's the case, I still think >> it's too early to write C ++ code with that assumption.) >> > > There is often a keyword force_inline or alwais_inline if needed Yes, but that's not portable. It's also not the same thing (and usually less useful than a plain "inline" hint, IMO). Daveed

I checkout LLVM and clang from SVN, then use CMake to generate project files for Visual Studio 2010 (I started with 2008). The LLVM project compiles successfully and gives me all the tools including Clang. For a few tests, I compile C++ code with Clang which if I need to I link, I use MinGW's ld passing all the relevant object files and libraries including correctly ordering the start-up code

Does Clang/Clang++ not have its own set of standard headers? Isn't this a serious issue if Clang/Clang++ is ever to outdo GCC/G++? Is there any work in progress on this? Ideally, Clang would ship as a ready-to-use installation image that included everything needed to use it as the possibly best C and C++ compiler on the market. Or, am I ahead of myself again? Cheers, Mikael -- Love Thy

On Aug 26, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: [...] > > The second part of this is that there are a lot of reasons for things > to be defined inline in C++ even if we don't want it to actually be > inlined. I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > For example,

On Aug 26, 2009, at 12:01 PM, Devang Patel wrote: >>> I do not understand how the "inlinehint" will help. How will it >>> influence the inliner ? >> >> The hint should make it more attractive to inline. I don't know >> the details >> yet and they will require some experimenting. >> > > In that case you want to add hint to A

Hi again, The Visual Studio getting started guide ( http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStartedVS.html) mentions the "llvm-lit" tool, but fails to mention these things: 1. Either you need to run it from bash or a similar Unix shell, as Windows does not recognize the extensionless Python script that it is. 2. Alternatively, you can invoke it using Python like this: python bin/llvm-lit