similar to: About mismatching calling conventions

Hi everyone, I have some problems with gettings the X86_thiscall calling convention to work. I am new to LLVM, so if this is the wrong place for this question then I appologise, please tell me where to go instead. I am generating code to call a member function of a class compiled with Microsoft Visual C++ using the JIT compiler. The following code is used to register the pointer to the

On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 03:25:10PM +0100, Serge Guelton via llvm-dev wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 04:47:03PM -0500, James Y Knight via llvm-dev wrote: > > That said, I do think it could make sense to prepare llvm for the world in > > which "python" is python3 on some systems. So, I'd propose the following: > > 1. Change all #! lines to say

Hi folks (CCing llvm-dev, but that's probably more of a cfe-dev topic), As a follow-up to that old thread about -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE=n http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/2015-November/045845.html And, more recently, to this fedora thread where clang/llvm -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE support is claimed to be only partial: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2020 I dig into the glibc headers in

Such as printf, etc., from IR created using the API (IRBuilder). Google hasn't provided much help, and I can't find anything relevant in the docs (the docs talk about how to do varargs in LLVM ASM, but not how to call an external vararg function that exists in a library that gets linked to the LLVM module). Is there something special I need to do? Simply calling

Hi folks, some more information on this feature - as a reminder I started one month ago to work on an expensive check that would verify that pass return status is correctly reported by passes, i.e. no pass return « IR not modified » while actually modifying it. It took ~20 pass fixes to achieve that goal, as many passes were not respectful of that contract, but as of

Hi folks, today, I wanted to concatenate two .ll, and naively typed: $ llvm-cat -help This is the not-so-helpful output I had: OVERVIEW: Module concatenation USAGE: llvm-cat [options] <input files> OPTIONS: General options: -aarch64-neon-syntax - Choose style of NEON code to emit from AArch64 backend: =generic

Hi everyone, I am trying to replace the call of a certain function with a call to another function. It would for example replace the following: %call = tail call noalias i8* @func(i64 10) by %call = tail call noalias i8* @other_func(i64 10) I managed to declare other_func correctly but I am having troubles to understand how I should proceed to do the replacement. I tried to use

> Out of curiosity, does change here include changes to names, and other semantically-irrelevant changes (e.g., changing the order of operands in a PHI)? The hashing function used to detect changes is currently very simple: it only accounts for instruction opcode and order. So some semantically-irrelevant changes are ignored (as well as some relevant changes), and some are not. Permuting two

Hi folks, Python2 has reached end of support[0], and many core Python packages are dropping pthon 2 support[1]. This is a subject that raises periodically on this mlist, with a rather strong no in 2018 [-1] and a slow move in 2019 [-2, -3]. Even if Python is not a core build requirement, it's used during some configurations steps (e.g. in the cmake export_executable_symbols function), for

Hi Folks, Although LLVM now relies on cmake for its build configuration, it still calls an external Python script, namely llvm-build, to manage component dependecies, activation or deactivation of target componenents and generating description for llvm-config. This system is documented in http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llvm-build.html and https://llvm.org/docs/LLVMBuild.html. Several

Hi folks, Per the documentation[0], whenever an LLVM pass doesn't modify the IR it's run on, it should return `false`--it's okay to return `true` if no change happen, just less optimal. In the New PM area, this is generally translated into a `PreservedAnalyses::all()`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D80916 provides an `EXPENSIVE_CHECK` that computes a hash of the IR before and after the

Hi Chandler, That's embarrassing how weird this part of clang is. I have a provisional patch which fixes the problem but underlines clang's problems. I will submit it tonight for comments. суббота, 18 октября 2014 г. пользователь Chandler Carruth написал: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < > anton at korobeynikov.info >

The next LLVM social in Paris will happen on January 30th, 2018. Everyone interested in LLVM, Clang, lldb, Polly, lld, ... is invited to join. Event details, including registration (free but mandatory) at http://www.meetup.com/LLVM-Clang-social For this meetup, Adrien Guinet, Serge Guelton and Juan Manuel Martinez will talk about the "Challenges when building an LLVM bitcode

Hi Folks, Now that LLVM 11.0.0 has been released, it's time to prepare for the final step envisionned in the previous RFC named *[RFC] Python 2 / Python 3 status* [0], ie. requiring Python3.6 for LLVM 12.0.0, to be released in 2021. At least Fedora already only ships Python3 and we didn't have much bugs reported wrt. Python compatibility for the LLVM toolchain. Indeed, all Python scripts

Hi all, I’m currently writing an LLVM function pass and I want to know how can I test it? Currently, I try to compile some crypto library and check if the test suite are working but I don’t think this is very efficient. Does anyone has a leads? Greetings, Johan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature

Dear Community, To improve current interprocedural register allocation (IPRA) , we have planned to set callee saved registers to none for local functions, currently I am doing it in following way: if (F->hasLocalLinkage() && !F->hasAddressTaken()) { DEBUG(dbgs() << "Function has LocalLinkage \n"); F->setCallingConv(CallingConv::GHC); } but we think threre

I am pleased to announce that LLVM 10 is now available. Get it here: https://llvm.org/releases/download.html#10.0.0 This release is the result of the LLVM community's work over the past six months (up to to e26a78e7085 on master plus commits up to d32170dbd5b on the release/10.x branch). Some highlights include: - C++ Concepts support in Clang - Clang no longer runs in a separate process

I am pleased to announce that LLVM 10 is now available. Get it here: https://llvm.org/releases/download.html#10.0.0 This release is the result of the LLVM community's work over the past six months (up to to e26a78e7085 on master plus commits up to d32170dbd5b on the release/10.x branch). Some highlights include: - C++ Concepts support in Clang - Clang no longer runs in a separate process

On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 09:04:15AM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:09:08PM +0000, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: > > The BSDs don't seem as much of an issue. FreeBSD 10 and 11 both have LLVM > > 3.9 and GCC 4.9. NetBSD 6.1.5 and 7.0 both have GCC 5.3 and LLVM 3.8. > > Open BSD has a very old GCC, but distrowatch claims that

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:12:34AM -0500, John Criswell wrote: > On 3/2/15 12:07 AM, Haopeng Liu wrote: > >Got it, thanks. But in my pass, I use function name to locate. Can I > >disable mangling in clang? > > No, but you can probably fine a library that can either mangle the original > name or demangle the name you're seeing in the LLVM bitcode. > > As an FYI,