search for: targetregistri

This is from https://stackoverflow.com/questions/48360685/no-targets-in-targetregistry I have the following code, which should get the default llvm::Target. auto const targetTriple = llvm::sys::getDefaultTargetTriple(); llvm_module.setTargetTriple(targetTriple); std::string error; auto const * target = llvm::TargetRegistry::lookupTarget(targetTriple, error); if (target ==

On 09/17/2011 21:53, Eli Friedman wrote: > Yes; we don't make any sort of guarantee about that, and such a > guarantee is not necessary for correctness. Aren't values in Core.h supposed to be used by users of API and they should match enums, or what they are for then? What are they matched against? >> > Also, llvm/Support/TargetRegistry.h and

Looks like constants in include/llvm-c/Core.h aren't in sync with enums. For example, LLVMAdd is 8 in Core.h and llvm::Instruction::LLVMAdd evaluates to 9 in C++. Same for Cast Operators section and possibly in other places. Also, llvm/Support/TargetRegistry.h and llvm/Target/TargetRegistry.h define two different version of some classes, particularly llvm::Target. Fields with the same

On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 9:14 PM, Yuri <yuri at rawbw.com> wrote: > Looks like constants in include/llvm-c/Core.h aren't in sync with enums. > For example, LLVMAdd is 8 in Core.h and  llvm::Instruction::LLVMAdd > evaluates to 9 in C++. > Same for Cast Operators section and possibly in other places. Yes; we don't make any sort of guarantee about that, and such a guarantee

Hi, The code @ line 584 of TargetRegistry.h effectively suppresses specifying any AsmStreamer constructor function but stock createAsmStreamer one. Is it by intention or condition should be replaced with != ? Best regards, Max

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Max Kazakov <max.kazakov at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > The code @ line 584 of TargetRegistry.h effectively suppresses specifying any > AsmStreamer constructor function but stock createAsmStreamer one. Is it by > intention or condition should be replaced with != ? Hi Max, are you sure that you have the tip-of-tree version of

Hi and merry X-Mas! At initialization I add some targets (e.g. LLVMInitializeX86TargetInfo()). Is this guaranteed not to allocate memory to prevent memory leaks? If you use llvm in a plug-in then it is possible to load and unload the plugin. As there is no way to clear the target registry and I do not see a "new" at the first glance I assume it does not allocate heap memory. Is this

Hi Ivan, Sorry for the confusion - in the latest version it is line 760: static void RegisterAsmStreamer(Target &T, Target::AsmStreamerCtorTy Fn) { if (T.AsmStreamerCtorFn == createAsmStreamer) T.AsmStreamerCtorFn = Fn; } Best regards, Max

While playing with sanitizer in a downstream project, I found out this. /Users/davide/work/llvm-monorepo/llvm-project-20170507/llvm/tools/llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer/llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer.cpp:207:32: error: reference to type 'std::unique_ptr<MCCodeEmitter>' could not bind to an lvalue of type 'llvm::MCCodeEmitter *' UseDwarfDirectory, IP, CE, MAB, ShowInst));

Hi All, While trying to put together an MC-based assembler the other day, I again encountered MC's non-obvious memory ownership rules. The most egregious example of these is MCObjectStreamer's destructor: MCObjectStreamer::~MCObjectStreamer() { delete &Assembler->getBackend(); delete &Assembler->getEmitter(); delete &Assembler->getWriter(); delete Assembler;

Hi! is there a way to get the c backend using llvm::TargetRegistry::lookupTarget()? e.g. llvm::TargetRegistry::lookupTarget("c", error)? - Jochen

It worked in August. Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did seem to care, but it is inevitable it would bitrot if it’s not built in any of the bots. George > On May 4, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > While playing with sanitizer in a downstream project, I found out this. > >

Thank you. I went ahead with a speculative fix in r331568. I'm not familiar _at all_ with the tool, so, although the fix was straightforward, another pair of eyes from somebody familiar with the tool would be appreciated. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > It worked in August. > Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did

hi all, I'm trying to write an LLVM-based interpreter for a small DSL that we have. The language is very simple (essentially a calculator), but I'd like it to execute efficiently. I've been following the tutorial, and have the following code for instantiating an ExecutionEngine: #include <LLVM\ExecutionEngine\JIT.h> #include

On May 3, 2011, at 12:01 PM, David A. Greene wrote: > "Rotem, Nadav" <nadav.rotem at intel.com> writes: > >> Can you describe which passes may benefit from this information ? My >> intuition is that until there are a number of passes which require >> this information, there are other ways to provide this >> information. One way would be to use

The stack trace: llvm::PMTopLevelManager::addImmutablePass(llvm::ImmutablePass*) llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*) moduleToObjectFile(llvm::Module*,std::string&,llvm::LLVMContext&) Sometimes it doesn't crash because TargetRegistry::lookupTarget() returns an error which says it doesn't support the current target > On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:14 AM, Mehdi Amini

In these days I’ve integrated llc code into my compiler. I had an undefined behaviour because when cl::AddExtraVersionPrinter(TargetRegistry::printRegisteredTargetsForVersion) is called, the modules I give to the code in input to compile got somehow “corrupted" by this function. It is definitely an undefined behaviour because every debug I do, modules gets different changes, producing

"Rotem, Nadav" <nadav.rotem at intel.com> writes: > Can you describe which passes may benefit from this information ? My > intuition is that until there are a number of passes which require > this information, there are other ways to provide this > information. One way would be to use Metadata. We have Cray-specific passes that use this information. Some of the

Sorry, that's a pure crash I think, assertions are not triggered. Xcode doesn’t map those 2 functions to line numbers because they’re in precompiled libraries On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:44 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Lorenzo Laneve <lore97drk at icloud.com <mailto:lore97drk at

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:41 PM, Lorenzo Laneve <lore97drk at icloud.com> wrote: > > The stack trace: > llvm::PMTopLevelManager::addImmutablePass(llvm::ImmutablePass*) > llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*) > moduleToObjectFile(llvm::Module*,std::string&,llvm::LLVMContext&) Without mapping to line numbers this is not very helpful: moduleToObjectFile