Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "machostreamer".
Did you mean:
mcmachostreamer
2010 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Static code generation - is it gone from LLVM 2.7?
...ne, create
FunctionPassManager, call TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile(), add my
own MyObjectCodeWriter pass and run passes.
But since LLVM 2.7 TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile (as implemented in
LLVMTargetMachine child class) adds its own final pass (AsmPrinter)
paired with either AsmStreamer, MachOStreamer or NullStreamer. I cannot
pass my own descendant of MCStreamer class. Now we've got predefined set
of final passes instead of free choice.
AFAIK to get object code file I have to feed emitted code through my own
MyMCStreamer class. The only sane option I see is to take assembly
output from Asm...
2010 Mar 29
0
[LLVMdev] Static code generation - is it gone from LLVM 2.7?
...nager, call TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile(), add my
> own MyObjectCodeWriter pass and run passes.
>
> But since LLVM 2.7 TargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile (as implemented in
> LLVMTargetMachine child class) adds its own final pass (AsmPrinter)
> paired with either AsmStreamer, MachOStreamer or NullStreamer. I cannot
> pass my own descendant of MCStreamer class. Now we've got predefined set
> of final passes instead of free choice.
LLVM 2.7 doesn't have final support for this. The idea is that we'd add ELF and PECOFFStreamers as well, or parameterize it a different...
2010 Jul 17
1
[LLVMdev] Win32 COFF Support - Patch 3
On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 11:25 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Overall patch looks good. I do have a few comments below. My main
> comment is please try to make the style match that used in the
> MCMachOStreamer more closely. I intend to refactor more functionality
> into the base MCObjectStreamer class, and having them use consistent
> idioms makes this easier; specific instances are included in the
> comments:
I implemented the changes and merged some stuff into MCObjectStreamer
along with mark...
2010 Mar 27
0
[LLVMdev] Static code generation - is it gone from LLVM 2.7?
On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote:
>>>
>>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still
>>> experimental, isn't it?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> Thank you for answers!
>
> Now there is a way to implement what I'd like to. But it would be MUCH
> better if LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile could take
2010 Mar 27
3
[LLVMdev] Static code generation - is it gone from LLVM 2.7?
Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Peter Shugalev wrote:
>
>>>> What exactly is expected to be coming? Will it be the same way MachO is
>>>> currently implemented but with some flexibility to supply my own class
>>>> to do actual object output? Or just a return of old ObjectCodeEmitter?
>>> We're integrating a full assembler