search for: registeroptions

Hey Andy > One easy pattern to follow is to register the option during pass initialization with all the convenient flags and parameters, but refer to a globally defined option storage that enforces the singleton and provides visibility. As long as pass initialization happens before parseCommandLine, usage should be consistent. > > Strawman: > > cl::optval<bool> MyOption; //

Dear r-devel, options() are basically global variables and they come with several issues: * they're not really truly owned by a package aside from loose naming conventions * they're not validated * their documentation is not standard, and they're often not documented at all, it's hard to know what options exist * in practice they're sometimes used for internal purposes, which

On 29/03/2024 10:52 a.m., Antoine Fabri wrote: > Dear r-devel, > > options() are basically global variables and they come with several issues: > * they're not really truly owned by a package aside from loose naming > conventions > * they're not validated > * their documentation is not standard, and they're often not documented at > all, it's hard to know

Hi, I wrote a machinefunction pass to try to see what's going on. Does it mean that it is target machine dependent pass, like x86? However, after compile it, I found there wasnot command option I registered. I used regular way to do it like RegisterOpt <...> X("... ", "... "), but I cannot see the optimized option when I use opt -load ../../lib/Debug/libxxx.so

LLVM's internal command line library needs to evolve. We have an immediate need to build LLVM as a library free of static initializers, but before brute-force fixing this problem, I'd like outline the incremental steps that will lead to a desirable long term solution. We want infrastructure in place to provide an evolutionary path. In the near term, clients who need llvm-the-library with

> > I think there are too many packages that would need changes under this > scheme. There would be zero if the registration of options is not required for packages first uploaded on CRAN before the feature is implemented. If an option is not registered no validation is triggered and nothing breaks even if we opt in the behavior. > If those functions could be made simple enough and

Hello, llvmers. Could someone explain me a little about the opt tool? I am having problems to load a MachineFunctionPass using opt. I have this pass: #include "llvm/Pass.h" #include "llvm/Function.h" #include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunctionPass.h" #include <iostream> using namespace llvm; namespace { struct MacFoo : public MachineFunctionPass { virtual

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Zhang Qiuyu wrote: > I wrote a machinefunction pass to try to see what's going on. Does it > mean that it is target machine dependent pass, like x86? However, after > compile it, I found there wasnot command option I registered. I used > regular way to do it like RegisterOpt <...> X("... ", "... "), but I > cannot see the optimized

For those working from LLVM CVS: I simplified the pass interface, eliminating the need for the RegisterOpt vs RegistierAnalysis distinction. If you're working on an out-of-tree pass, you should just use 'RegisterPass' instead of RegisterOpt or RegisterAnalysis. I've updated the "Writing an LLVM Pass" doc to reflect current best practice. -Chris --

Hi, Op 15-nov-06, om 03:26 heeft Tanya M. Lattner het volgende geschreven: > I'm able to reproduce this if I skip doing a "make" and directly do a > "make install" after configuring. I believe we require people to do > a full > build before attempting to install. So I don't think its really a bug. > Could you try doing a make first and then install?

> When building LLVM 1.9 on OSX 10.4.8, I get (after a while, see attachment): > > make[1]: *** No rule to make target `/path/to/llvm-build/Debug/bin/tblgen', > needed by `/path/to/llvm-build/lib/VMCore/Debug/Intrinsics.gen.tmp'. Stop. > make: *** [install] Error 1 > > when doing: > > $LLVM_SRC/configure --prefix=$LLVM_INSTALL --with-llvmgccdir=$LLVM_FRONT

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > Hello, llvmers. Could someone explain me a little about the opt tool? I am > having problems to load a MachineFunctionPass using opt. I have this pass: MachineFunctionPass's cannot be used as part of opt, they can only be used as part of LLC. Further, you have to explicitly modify the target you are interested in to add it

Test Cases: (attached) Iteration code: (...) typedef TarjanSCC_iterator<CallGraph*> MyTarjan; CallGraph& callGraph = getAnalysis<CallGraph>(); MyTarjan iter = tarj_begin(&callGraph); MyTarjan end = tarj_end(&callGraph); while(iter!=end) iter++; (...) if you take the time to print out the function each non-looping node iter traverses, it never reaches main...

Hi, I'm having a problem with opt. According to the "Writing an LLVM Pass" tutorial, all I have to do to get the Hello pass to work is: cd ${LLVM_HOME}/llvm/lib/Transforms/Hello gmake cd $MYTEST opt -load ${OBJ_ROOT}/lib/Release/libhello.so -hello < something.bc > /dev/null First (just as a friendly reminder), someone may want to go back and double check a bunch of

Wait, I have a terrible idea. Why don't we roll our own .init_array style appending section? I think we can make this work for all toolchains we support. We'd have something like: struct PODOptData { const char *FlagName; ... // Common POD stuff, can be initialized at ParseCommandLine time. }; LLVM_SECTION(".llvmopt") PODOptData OptionRegisterer = { "foo_flag",

Thanks, I've been through the documentation, and if I visit main, i think everything will turn out correctly... Printing out the Call graph reveals that main is calling this external node i think you are making reference to. Could this be the problem? Dave On Fri, 6 Dec 2002, Chris Lattner wrote: > > if you take the time to print out the function each non-looping node iter >

> On Aug 19, 2014, at 1:32 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> * Nobs for which there is not a single right answer for all users. >>> There are very few of these currently and we expect it to remain like >>> that. These should not use cl::opt or static storage at all. They >>> should be an option passed to the

Isnt all the command line options only relevant to the driver, so if all the command line options are migrated to the driver, the library will be free from static initializers. Doesnt this make it more cleaner ? Thanks Shankar Easwaran On 9/17/2013 12:10 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > LLVM's internal command line library needs to evolve. We have an immediate need to build LLVM as a library

On Sep 17, 2013, at 10:31 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I definitely agree with the desire to remove command line options and > having them be initialized as part of the pass would be general > goodness. However, a few possible issues: > > a) a number of command line options aren't really connected to passes > per-se

----- Original Message ----- > LLVM's internal command line library needs to evolve. We have an > immediate need to build LLVM as a library free of static > initializers, but before brute-force fixing this problem, I'd like > outline the incremental steps that will lead to a desirable long > term solution. We want infrastructure in place to provide an > evolutionary path.