search for: lexers

Hello With the latest LLVM from Subversion (rev48737 from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk) I'm getting make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj/lib/AsmParser' llvm[2]: Flexing Lexer.l llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error:

Hi. For weeks now I have problems compiling llvm from svn, compilation ends with llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Release build /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error: 'PURE' was not declared in this scope /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:279: error: 'CONST'

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 11:29 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Well, maybe, we should just change the Linux kernel instead of tweaking > our tokenizer too hard. > This is silly. Writing a simple and maintainable lexer is not hard (look e.g. at https://reviews.llvm.org/D10817). There are some complicated context-sensitive cases in linker scripts that break our approach

Hi Daniel, attached is a patch that pushes most of the object file specific parsing out of AsmParser and down into MachOAsmParser. This was done as a cleanup for the ELF work. I know that you're not happy with this approach, particularly the fact that as we add more object file formats and assembler dialects, it's going to cause a class explosion. But I was hoping that we could use this

> Hmm..., the crux of not being able to lex arithmetic expressions seems to > be due to lack of context sensitivity. E.g. consider `foo*bar`. Could be a > multiplication, or could be a glob pattern. > > Looking at the code more closely, adding context sensitivity wouldn't be > that hard. In fact, our ScriptParserBase class is actually a lexer (look at > the interface; it

Is this the appropriate place for GSoC conversations? If I understand the proposal correctly, there should be a lexer (written in R) that exposes an API; that API would be used by segregated mini-parsers (Roclets) which do the dirty work of Roxygen -> {html, LaTeX, DocBook, ...} translation. The lexer should ship with a proof-of-concept Roclet. Have I missed anything?

Hi, I'm playing around with llvm and the Kaleidoscope tutorial and first of all I have to say I'm really impressed. LLVM rocks! Unfortunately I've now run into a linker error while trying to optimize the IR or turn it to bitcode and likely due to my very limited experience with c++ I just can't figure out how to resolve it. The linker complains that the llvm::WriteBitcodeToFile

On Sunday 25 November 2007 05:28, Aaron Gray wrote: > > On Sunday 25 November 2007 03:42, Christopher Lamb wrote: > >> Try this google query. I know there's been some discussion/work on > >> OCaml and LLVM. > >> > >> site:lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev OCaml interface > > > > I just rediscovered the OCaml bindings in bindings/ocaml

On Fri, Jan 27, 2017 at 1:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > Sean, > > So as you noticed that linker script tokenization rule is not very trivial > -- it is context sensitive. The current lexer is extremely simple and > almost always works well. Improving "almost always" to "perfect" is not > high priority because we have many more high

Hi, Is it possible to make the lexer and parser in clang a variability-aware? For example, if a C/C++ program contains a #ifdef, #else, #endif sequence, can clang generate AST with conditional nodes? How much effort would be needed? Thanks, -Riya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

>> Lexing is the one issue though. > > How do you mean? I think he's observing that a majority of the tutorial code is actually spent on the lexer and parser, not on the llvm-specific pieces. > I'm just fiddling around with it now. The lexer, parser and AST > written using > camlp4 might look something like this in OCaml: Sure, the existing tutorial would be

I am unknown to all the stuff happening in and around LLVM, as i am interested in the project but had not time to dig in, yet. Just reading here and there a bit. But i wanted to share my 2 cents on the Lexer topic. I have written multiple lexer/parser for private purpose and recently one for our product to compile Mathematical expressions into an internal format for evaluation. So far i usually

>> I have a question also. You added -m elf_i386 to workaround emulation conflict issue in LLD, do you know >> does output produced by BFD boot fine after that change ? >Doesn't seem to affect BFD at all. Thanks ! ?George. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi everyone. Because there is still a little confusion about the huge document, I want to know what llvm can provide when we customize our new compiler? For example, a normal compiler includes lexer, parser, intermediate code generator , optimizer and target code generator. According to llvm documents, it seems that llvm can provide a better intermediate code presentation. And what else can it

Hi, I am trying to understand LLVM. Can an expert tell me how to compare the kaleidoscope implementation with the LLVM's compiler implementation. I mean can anyone tell me about the lexer, parser, codegen related .cpp and .h files inside the LLVM solution project. I would like to understand the LLVM's compiler in the same way that the kaleidoscope compiler is explained. Thanks a lot.

Hello, I would like to gather some ideas and opinions on how to make the default AsmLexer more flexible when dealing with Identifiers. When the lexer emits something as an "Identifier" (read. String of characters) it means that it needs to be parsed all at once in a single go, even if it contains elements that might be wanted to be parsed as separate entities. In that case it is needed

>Our tokenizer recognize > > [A-Za-z0-9_.$/\\~=+[]*?\-:!<>]+ > >as a token. gold uses more complex rules to tokenize. I don't think we need that much complex rules, but there seems to be >room to improve our tokenizer. In particular, I believe we can parse the Linux's linker script by changing the tokenizer rules as >follows. > >

Hello: I've been trying for days now to get igraph working on a debian sarge install. There does not appear to be any pre-built packages, and when I try and install within R, it blows up on the final linking, claiming its unable to find libgfortran (which IS installed, and IS working for all other users of the compiler). I started up R and ran: install.packages("igraph"). It

...ght things if they stray too far from the lexical syntax it expects (due to being out of date or misspecified in the Pygments highlighter). You should check that the upstream has the same issue < https://bitbucket.org/birkenfeld/pygments-main/src/9246d7a47a42e7920c0ecee4d4946b982e9e2430/pygments/lexers/asm.py?at=default#cl-193>. We may just need to update to the latest sphinx. -- Sean Silva > > > -- Mikael > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs....

Hi, I'm having a hard time finding an answer to what I assume is a very basic idea. I'm trying to produce this llvm code using the LLVM api: %myString = alloca [13 x i8], i32 13 store [13 x i8] c"Hello world.\00", [13 x i8]* %myString %tmp1 = getelementptr [13 x i8]* %myString, i32 0, i32 0 %tmp2 = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf( i8* %tmp1 ) nounwind A simple Hello