similar to: [LLVMdev] To a.out or not to a.out

> I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the > default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm > currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated > and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or > you get an error. I don't see anything wrong with having the

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Brian R. Gaeke wrote: > > I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the > > default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm > > currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated > > and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or > >

On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 10:53, Brian R. Gaeke wrote: > I don't see anything wrong with having the default for the "-o" option > be "a.out"... If it were up to me, I would keep it. Well, the issue for me is that "a.out" in LLVM land can be a shell script and even if its a native executable, it probably isn't in the ancient a.out format. perhaps we need

Reid Spencer wrote: > Yes, that's right! > > In fact, shortly the process of doing that will get easier with the > llvmc (compiler driver) tool that I'm working on. [another newbie delurks] Hi, Reid. Been tinkering with LLVM about 2 weeks now. I've been using the Stacker Compiler as an example so far for my own little project. Is this tool you mentioned coming

Hi, I built LLVM + Clang on Mac OS X and ran make check. I get the following result summary: Failing Tests (11): LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/dash-x.cpp LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/hello.cpp LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/just-compile.cpp LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/together.cpp LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/unknown_suffix.unk LLVM :: LLVMC/C/hello.c LLVM :: LLVMC/C/opt-test.c LLVM :: LLVMC/C/sink.c LLVM ::

On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 8:40 PM, S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli <bharadwajy at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I built LLVM + Clang on Mac OS X and ran make check. I get the > following result summary: > > Failing Tests (11): >    LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/dash-x.cpp >    LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/hello.cpp >    LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/just-compile.cpp >    LLVM :: LLVMC/C++/together.cpp >  

I am getting this error while using the command "llvmc -O3 -Wall hello.cpp" where hello.cpp is some cpp file on my machine. llvmc is the driver calling a bunch of tools like llvm-g++, opt, llc etc. I think the llvmc tool could not probably locate the llvm-g++ tool. I would like to know where should I specify the path to llvm-g++ for llvmc to find them. Also can someone give me the link

Hi, Apparently there are two bugs in tools/llvmc/c: /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:12: Error: Invalid top level configuration item /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:28: Error: Expecting a program name /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c had 2 errors. Terminating. The first error relates to the following line(s): lang.libs=%llvmgccdir%/lib %llvmgccdir%/lib \ %llvmgccdir%/lib/gcc/%llvmgccarch% ... the other one to:

I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/include -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -g

Hi, Is it intended that llvmc should search PATH for llc? For example, this means that llvmc 2.7 can invoke llc 2.8: % echo $PATH /home/jdenny/installs/llvm/2.8/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/games % /home/jdenny/installs/llvm/2.7/bin/llvmc test.ll llc: Unknown command line argument '-f'. Try: 'llc -help' % strace -f

Without this patch, opt is never called for llvm-assembly (.ll) files when "-opt" is passed to llvmc: $ llvmc -clang -v test.ll llc -f -O2 test.ll -o /tmp/llvm_gvO2nK/test.s as /tmp/llvm_gvO2nK/test.s -o /tmp/llvm_gvO2nK/test.o llvm-ld -native -disable-internalize /tmp/llvm_gvO2nK/test.o -o a.out $ llvmc -clang -opt -v test.ll llc -f -O2 test.ll -o /tmp/llvm_2xiL86/test.s as

On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:30 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I strongly recommend not using llvmc unless you know exactly what you're doing and what the features and limitations of llvmc are. Please use the clang driver. > > Is llvmc just a wrapper on top of llvm-gcc and clang? In

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 21:18 +0200, Bram Adams wrote: > Hi, > > Apparently there are two bugs in tools/llvmc/c: This tool is, as yet, unfinished. > > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:12: Error: Invalid top level configuration item > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:28: Error: Expecting a program name > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c had 2 errors. Terminating. > > The first error relates to

Nick Lewycky wrote: > I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: > > make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' > llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc > g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/include -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE

On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 11:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 10:21 PM, Xinliang David Li wrote: > > > > 2010/10/29 Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > >> > clang -x c foo.c -emit-llvm-bc -o /tmp/llvm_JnS1o8/foo.bc >> > (.text+0x20): undefined reference to `main' >> > collect2:

Thank you so much for your reply, Chris. If so, can I ask you two things more? First, is there any way to have various optimizations on LLVM assembly such as -O options in llvmc? llvm-gcc doesn't seem to be working for these -O options... Second, I'm still not sure about difference between *.s and *.ll. LLVM assembly *.s file can be made from llvm-gcc -S. Another assembly *.ll file comes

Babak, I strongly suggest you drop trying to use llvmc. Instead, probably just compiling your library with llvm-gcc should be sufficient. The llvm-gcc tool has much of llc's functionality built in to it so you're going to get the same output. If that doesn't work for you, then please describe what you're trying to do in more detail and we'll tell you how it can be done.

Thank you Chris. Actually, I have changed the stack organization in the "llc" source codes for x86 target. Thus, I need libraries compiled with the new stack organization. If I use llvm-gcc (and apparently also llvmc), llc will not be invoked. I was hoping that llvmc would call llvm-gcc to compile to bc file and then call llc to compile to native assembly, but apparently this

On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Holger Schurig wrote: > Is llvmc meant for compilation? > I'm not sure what the status of llvmc is (is anyone working on it?), but I don't believe it was ready for real use or was finished. If you would like to work on it, patches are welcomed! Thanks, Tanya > $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o > /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c:55: Error: Expecting output

Is llvmc meant for compilation? $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c:55: Error: Expecting output type value /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c had 1 errors. Terminating. The offending line contains: optimizer.output = bytecode which doesn't seem to be understood by llvmc. If I uncomment this line, I get another error message: $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o llvmc: Can't find program