Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "lib_iterator".
2013 Jan 16
0
[LLVMdev] RFC: auto-linking IR proposal
...gt;(getObjFileLowering());
+ // Output linker support code for #pragma comment(lib, ...) on Windows
+ if (M.lib_size() > 0 && Subtarget->isTargetWindows()) {
+ OutStreamer.SwitchSection(TLOFCOFF.getDrectveSection());
+ SmallString<128> name;
+ for (Module::lib_iterator I = M.lib_begin(), E = M.lib_end();
+ I != E; ++I) {
+ name = " /DEFAULTLIB:\"";
+ name += *I;
+ name += "\"";
+ OutStreamer.EmitBytes(name, 0);
+ }
+ }
+
for (Module::const_iterator I = M.begin(), E = M.end(); I != E;...
2013 Jan 16
2
[LLVMdev] RFC: auto-linking IR proposal
...gt;
> + // Output linker support code for #pragma comment(lib, ...) on Windows
> + if (M.lib_size() > 0 && Subtarget->isTargetWindows()) {
> + OutStreamer.SwitchSection(TLOFCOFF.getDrectveSection());
> + SmallString<128> name;
> + for (Module::lib_iterator I = M.lib_begin(), E = M.lib_end();
> + I != E; ++I) {
> + name = " /DEFAULTLIB:\"";
> + name += *I;
> + name += "\"";
> + OutStreamer.EmitBytes(name, 0);
> + }
> + }
> +
> for (Module::const...
2013 Jan 15
4
[LLVMdev] RFC: auto-linking IR proposal
Hi all,
We plan to add some auto-linking support for Mach-O, and need a scheme for
encoding this information in the LLVM IR. We would like the same scheme to
be able to support Microsoft's #pragma comment(lib,...) and #pragma
comment(library, ...) features eventually.
The current proposal is as follows:
--
#1. Extend module-level metadata flags (llvm.module.flags) to support two
new
2007 Jul 05
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH (rest of code changes) "bytecode" --> "bitcode"
Here is the bulk of the sanitizing.
My residual doubts center around the question
whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code
in 2.0/2.1.
I need a definitive word on this to proceed.
My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are
still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code
(instead of *bit*code).
I did not touch those areas, so the attached