search for: targettriples

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 ==

Clang patch for X32 support. Applies against current trunk. --- ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td.orig 2013-05-16 21:51:51.286129820 +0000 +++ ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td 2013-05-16 21:53:24.875004239 +0000 @@ -841,6 +841,7 @@ HelpText<"Enable hexagon-qdsp6 backward compatibility">; def m3dnowa : Flag<["-"], "m3dnowa">,

Hi, I'm working on bringing up complete coverage for a Gentoo x32 "desktop" system. I've been cooking up quite a few patches for various packages to push upstream, but right now, the biggest blocker is the lack of support for building with/codegen targeting x32 in llvm/clang. Since the x32 patches were sent last year, I see support code has landed in LLVM, and basic handling of

This patch is still not creating elf32_x86_64 objects. No idea why. :( It does however, fix elf_x86_64 (-m64) code generation on x32 hosts which is nice. :) --- ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td.orig 2013-05-16 21:51:51.286129820 +0000 +++ ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td 2013-05-16 21:53:24.875004239 +0000 @@ -841,6 +841,7 @@ HelpText<"Enable hexagon-qdsp6

Hi everyone, I just reported the following issue: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=24927 Using the Xcode 7 linker, one gets messages such as the following when linking objects generated using llvm: ld: warning: object file (foo.o) was built for newer OS X version (14.5) than being linked (10.9) The issue is the following: a) In lib/Support/Unix/Host.inc, sys::getDefaultTargetTriple()

I think we need to take a step further back and re-enter from the right starting point. The thing that's bothering me about the push back so far is that it's trying to discuss and understand the consequences of resolving the core problem while seemingly ignoring the core problem itself. The reason I've been steering everything back to GNU Triple's being ambiguous and inconsistent

Hello, I am encountering a strange assertion failure using the LLVM libraries cross-compiled for Android using the Android NDK. I am using the official release of LLVM-2.9. The IR which is causing the assertion failure is the following: define void @__construct_Byte__Integer(i8* nocapture %byteLValue, i32 %integerRValue) inlinehint { entry: %0 = trunc i32 %integerRValue to i8 store i8 %0,

ARM subtarget features are determined by parsing the target tuple string TT. (ParseARMTriple(StringRef TT) in ARMMCTargetDesc.cpp) In llc, the -march setting overrides the architecture specified in -mtriple. So when you invoke: $ llc -march arm -mtriple armv7-none-linux ... ParseARMTriple() will see TT == "arm-none-linux" instead of "armv7-none-linux". As a result, the

Eric, Attached are patches for llvm and clang that implement this. I've made 'none' a component that must be added explicitly (i.e. don't turn arm-eabi into arm--none-eabi, but rather turn it into arm--unknown-eabi) to try to reduce surprises. It also keeps the normalization logic a bit simpler than it would otherwise have to be. SPIR triples were one place where I was

Hi all :) I'm new to llvm! I'm going through the kaleidoscope : compiling llvm IR to object code tutorial, code in the listings breaks and causes a segmentation fault. After some investigation through gdb, probably this constructor call, causing the segfault. |Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.|| ||0x00000000004afee0 in

>> Here's the line of thought that I'd like people to start with: >> * Triples don't describe the target. They look like they should, but they >> don't. They're really just arbitrary strings. > >Triples are used as a starting point, but no more. I disagree with this but for now let's assume it's true. The starting point is incorrect because

On Mar 2, 2012, at 12:04 AM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > ARM subtarget features are determined by parsing the target tuple string TT. (ParseARMTriple(StringRef TT) in ARMMCTargetDesc.cpp) > > In llc, the -march setting overrides the architecture specified in -mtriple. So when you invoke: > > $ llc -march arm -mtriple armv7-none-linux ... > >

...athan > I'll let others comment on MC hooks, I just made a very brief look > over the contents of the archive. You can find the comments below. > Yes I looked at this and there are several ways but TargetAsmBackend looked the bast place to deal with the MCStreamer choice for different TargetTriples. > for (SmallVector<char, Len>::const_iterator i = > Data.begin (); i != Data.end (); i++) > > { > > if (i != Data.begin ()) > > dbgout (' '); &...

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

Hi David! Thanks for reaching out, the codegen part of the tutorial is fine, but when I try to generate the object code file, it throws segfault. Also please note that I'm using release build of llvm, actually I don't know whether that is the root cause or not. I also run through valgrind, it seems like a invalid read from stack. |||Error Summary: | |1 errors in context 1 of 1:

On 2 May 2010 19:32, Nathan Jeffords <blunted2night at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for both of your feedback, I will attempt to make it fit LLVM coding > standards better before I resubmit my work. You can send me early drafts to run past GCC, send me something that works. As far as the hooks I put in, they are really only there so I could build > the object exporter outside of

On 16 September 2015 at 21:56, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Why do we care about GAS? We have an assembler. It's not that simple. There are a lot of old code out there, including the Linux kernel which we do care a lot, that only compiles with GAS. We're slowly moving the legacy code up to modern standards, and specifically some kernel folks are happy to move up

This is the right fix if Cygwin wants calls to __chkstk. Otherwise you'll want TargetTriple.isOSMSVCRT(). On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 2:50 AM, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > If it's a Windows-only thing the correct tests would be: > > if (NumBytes >= 4096 && STI.isOSWindows()) { > > and > > if (Subtarget->isTargetWindows()) >

> OK, I'm going to just reply to the last because I think it's the most important part of all this and would like to try to have us side tracked again. If you'd like I can reply to it, but let's take the last part first :) > > > > Could you please provide some examples of things that are impossible right now > > > with command lines, how those interact with

Hi ! > Sorry I missed responding to this email sooner. No problem, I was not in a hurry. :) > The approximate approach I had in mind sounds like what you describe, Ok Cool ! > I have been meaning to do this, but won't have time for a couple weeks I suspect. So I will give it a try. :) I was able to quickly hack a JITObjectWriter and I am able to execute simple functions (with