similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM LL(k) grammar

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 6000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] LLVM LL(k) grammar"

2012 May 18
3
[LLVMdev] Adding a New Instruction to LLVM IR
Hello; I was planning to add a new instruction to the LLVM IR (and later to MIPS backend) for TLS(Thread level speculation) support. For this I tried to follow the steps described in http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM dot html#instruction. But I could not find any llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l and llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y file in both the svn repository and the source code downloaded
2006 Jan 11
4
[LLVMdev] Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.cpp Lexer.l
I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030639.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030654.html Build terminated with messages: --8X---------------------------------------------- llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build In file included from
2006 Jan 11
0
[LLVMdev] Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.cpp Lexer.l
On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Vladimir A. Merzliakov wrote: > I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030639.html > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030654.html This is most likely because you have conflict markers in the generated files in the lib/AsmParser directory. Try removing
2006 Jan 11
1
[LLVMdev] Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.cpp Lexer.l
For VC++, I solved this by having bison/flex put the files into the obj directories. I also have it unconditionally regenerate the files if bison/flex is available, and copy them from src if they are not. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Vladimir A. Merzliakov wrote: > >> I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs >>
2006 Jan 11
1
[LLVMdev] Re: [llvm-commits] CVS: llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.cpp Lexer.l
No solutions come to mind. Conflicts are conflicts and must be resolved manually. This situation should only occur if you change the .l/.y file and then update the .h/.cpp files after someone else has changed the .l/.y file and regenerated the .h and .cpp. That doesn't seem like a high frequency scenario that we need to worry about. Not sure there's much we could do even if it was. Reid.
2016 May 26
1
Potential ambiguity in the grammar of LLVM IR assembly
Hello Tim, Thank you for getting back to me. The language grammar as defined by the LLVM Language Reference Manual [1] does not include the details of the LLVM IR parser reference implementation. The following extract from "lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp" illustrates that unnamed globals are allowed [2]. > /// ParseUnnamedGlobal: > /// OptionalVisibility (ALIAS | IFUNC) ...
2016 May 26
0
Potential ambiguity in the grammar of LLVM IR assembly
On 25 May 2016 at 16:10, Robin Eklind via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > declare void @foo() unnamed_addr > global i32 42 Doesn't a global have to be named? The syntax in the IR reference doesn't make it optional: @<GlobalVarName> = [Linkage] [Visibility] [DLLStorageClass] [ThreadLocal] ... Cheers. Tim.
2009 Jan 08
1
[LLVMdev] Build failure on x86_64
Hello! I see the following build failure of the sources at the top of the trunk, on x86_64. make[2]: Entering directory `<llvm-root>/build/llvm/lib/AsmParser' llvm[2]: Compiling LLLexer.cpp for Release build llvm[2]: Compiling LLParser.cpp for Release build <llvm-root>/src/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function 'bool llvm::LLParser::ParseGlobal(const
2016 May 25
4
Potential ambiguity in the grammar of LLVM IR assembly
Hello everyone, While developing a parser for LLVM IR, I seem to have stumbled upon a potential ambiguity in the LLVM IR assembly language grammar. Most likely there is something which I may have overlooked, so wanted to reach out to a more experienced crowed for some feedback. How would the following set of tokens be interpreted [1]? declare void @foo() unnamed_addr global i32 42 As far as
2011 Jan 24
3
[LLVMdev] LLVM grammar for ANTLR
Has anyone written a grammar for LLVM for ANTLR. I mean an ANTLR grammar that parses LLVM instructions. Is an LLVM grammar available for any other parsing tool? Surinder
2009 Jan 02
0
[LLVMdev] New .ll parser
Checking in ParserInternals.h would probably be a good thing about now... because if you take this update, it doesn't compile. -scooter On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 11:12 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I just checked in a new parser for .ll files, deleting the old bison > parser. This means that the last of the ".cvs" files are gone from the > tree,
2006 Nov 08
0
[LLVMdev] 1.9 Next Steps
On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:39:46PM -0800, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm I'm getting a build error: llvm[2]: Compiling llvmAsmParser.cpp for Release build /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y: In function `int llvmAsmparse()': /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y:2105: error: expected `;' before '}' token
2009 Jan 02
3
[LLVMdev] New .ll parser
I just checked in a new parser for .ll files, deleting the old bison parser. This means that the last of the ".cvs" files are gone from the tree, which will hopefully make the world a happier place for windows users in particular. I tested it thoroughly but expect minor fallout, if you notice any problems, please let me know.
2008 Sep 19
2
[LLVMdev] Disappearing Machine Basic Blocks (for new instruction)
I have a new instruction that takes 2 labels, and in SelectionDAGISel, I have it doing "CurMBB->addSuccessor()" for both machine blocks. The DAG node it creates also takes both blocks as SDOperands. When I lower to x86, the not-fallthrough block disappears. If I run llc with --fast, the blocks stay around, so it must be an optimization pass of some sort that doesn't realize my
2006 Jul 29
4
Formal Grammar — some thoughts
I recently subscribed and saw in the archive that Eric Astor was asking for a formal grammar (unlikely the first time for such request.) Currently there are a few problems in making such a thing so I was curious if Mr. Gruber has made any thoughts about moving toward one? This would also allow a more ?clean? parser which would get rid of some of the current problems (bad nesting[^1],
2007 Dec 23
1
[LLVMdev] compilaton problem
Hi. For weeks now I have problems compiling llvm from svn, compilation ends with llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Release build /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error: 'PURE' was not declared in this scope /home/borist/builds/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:279: error: 'CONST'
2008 Mar 24
1
[LLVMdev] AsmParser/Lexer.l error
Hello With the latest LLVM from Subversion (rev48737 from http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk) I'm getting make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/Lang/llvm/_Obj/lib/AsmParser' llvm[2]: Flexing Lexer.l llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l: In function 'int llvmAsmlex()': /usr/src/Lang/llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l:278: error:
2006 Nov 08
6
[LLVMdev] 1.9 Next Steps
I created the 1.9 release branch last night. As a reminder, please do not check in any code changes to the release branch. Please send me email if you have changes that need to be merged into the release branch. To check out the release branch: cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm-test cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r
2009 Sep 23
1
[LLVMdev] Extending LLVM: Adding instructions, intrinsics, types, etc.
Hello all, I am trying to add a new type; however, I found the information in the web site out of date. The modification was: 2008-12-11 12:23:24 -0600. I am interested in the below files: 1. llvm/lib/AsmReader/Lexer.l: add ability to parse in the type from text assembly 2. llvm/lib/AsmReader/llvmAsmParser.y: add a token for that type I could not find them. Could someone tell me what
2017 Jan 31
2
Linking Linux kernel with LLD
>> I have a question also. You added -m elf_i386 to workaround emulation conflict issue in LLD, do you know >> does output produced by BFD boot fine after that change ? >Doesn't seem to affect BFD at all. Thanks ! ?George. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: