search for: llvmoptions

Displaying 13 results from an estimated 13 matches for "llvmoptions".

Did you mean: llvmoption
2016 Jun 18
2
Supporting sub commands in LLVM command line tools
Not sure I follow how this would work. "llvm" is an executable, and "opt" is a symlink to "llvm"? How does llvm then detect that it needs to use the opt set of commands? That said, in principle sure you could have "llvm opt <opt-specific command syntax>" or "llvm llc <llc options>". At some point you'd probably need to extend
2016 Feb 28
4
[cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched
With reference to the following thread: http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-January/094100.html I am having the same issue. First I did a git pull of all the relevant directories and then doing a cmake: cmake -DLLVM_ENABLE_DOXYGEN=ON -DLLVM_ENABLE_WERROR=OFF -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86" ../llvm and followed by make: [ 22%] Built target LLVMVectorize [ 25%] Built target
2016 Feb 29
0
[cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched
Hi, The test-suite expects to be built standalone but it looks like you have it in the same tree as LLVM. You'll need to remove it. From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Peter Teoh via llvm-dev Sent: 28 February 2016 14:31 To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] [cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched With reference to the following thread:
2016 Feb 29
0
[cfe-dev] [3.8 Release] We have branched
I think we've just forgotten to update that part of the instructions. Having the test-suite at projects/test-suite was harmless to the old autoconf and LLVM 3.7.x's cmake builds because it didn't actually cause the test-suite to be built. The CMakeLists.txt that have been added to the test-suite now cause it to be built by LLVM's build system which introduces the build failure. We
2017 Jun 28
2
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
> On 27 Jun 2017, at 13:25, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > Despite the statement in the HowToCrossCompileLLVM guide "If you’re > using Clang as the cross-compiler, there is a problem in the LLVM ARM > back-end that is producing absolute relocations on > position-independent code (R_ARM_THM_MOVW_ABS_NC), so for now, you
2017 Jun 28
3
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
Oh, so it looks like I hit a bit of a wall there :-) I’ll take a look thanks. That bug talks about R_ARM_THM_CALL which I assume are thumb related. Will your implementation fix also R_ARM_CALL errors? > On 28 Jun 2017, at 17:15, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Alessandro, > > The LLD ARM port doesn't currently support range extension thunks,
2017 Jun 28
3
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
I've successfully used Peter's patches to get past those relocation errors. On 6/28/17, 9:36 AM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Peter Smith via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: Yes it should cover the following relocations: R_ARM_CALL (ARM BL/BLX) R_ARM_JUMP24 (ARM B) R_ARM_THM_CALL (Thumb BL/BLX)
2017 Jun 28
2
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
The bottom of the bug has the revision numbers (e.g. D34035). That one corresponds to e.g. https://reviews.llvm.org/D34035 There's also https://reviews.llvm.org/D34634 which contains all of Peter's patches, but it's not going to rebase cleanly once the individual patches start going in. On 6/28/17, 10:56 AM, "Alessandro Pistocchi" <apukfreelance at gmail.com> wrote:
2017 Jun 30
3
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
At a guess that looks like your llvm and lld checkouts are not quite in synch. It will be worth updating llvm and lld to top of trunk. I've rebased the consolidated patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D34634 this morning, it might be worth trying that if you are seeing problems. Peter On 29 June 2017 at 22:09, Alessandro Pistocchi <apukfreelance at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, I tried
2017 Jun 27
3
Building llvm with clang and lld on arm and the llvm arm backend relocation on position independent code
> On 26 Jun 2017, at 16:25, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 6:40 AM, Alessandro Pistocchi via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to build a completely GNU free linux toolchain for the raspberry pi. > > I successfully managed to compile llvm and clang
2017 Feb 11
2
Asan self host problems: Failed to deallocate
Trying to run a self host "ninja check-clang" with ASan enabled I hit a /lot/ of errors like this (strangely I hit none of these in check-llvm, only in check-clang): Any ideas? ==10525==ERROR: AddressSanitizer failed to deallocate 0x10800 (67584) bytes at address 0x631000014800 ==10525==AddressSanitizer CHECK failed:
2017 Feb 15
2
Asan self host problems: Failed to deallocate
I wish there was something like the line in config.log that would show the CMake command, but instead I can at least show you the CMakeCache files for my release build and asan build (attached to this email). No lld, so far as I know - believe I'm using gold at the moment for both builds. Did just reproduce this with a clean release build and a clean asanified build from that. Same errors. I
2019 Apr 30
6
Disk space and RAM requirements in docs
Hi, Have anybody recently built LLVM in Debug mode /within/ space requirements from the Getting Started doc? https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#hardware > An LLVM-only build will need about 1-3 GB of space. A full build of LLVM and Clang will need around 15-20 GB of disk space. From my experience this numbers looks drastically low. On FreeBSD my recent builds consumed more than