similar to: [LLVMdev] [patch] print ".weak" directive

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote: > The attached patch makes the ASM printer print the ".weak" directive > when a weak symbol is added to a constant pool. > > I need something similar to it in order to bootstrap gcc on ARM. --- lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter.cpp 7 Dec 2006 01:30:31 -0000 1.120 +++ lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter.cpp 7 Dec 2006 13:00:17 -0000 @@

I have a problem (bug 2672) in which I have a static initializer that contains a GEP. The GEP itself has arguments that do casts and another GEP. This fails in EmitConstantValueOnly() because the GEP arguments are not recognized as constant (link time) expressions. It looks to me that a proper solution could be to make EmitConstantValueOnly() return its constant value and call it for each

Adds external weak symbols of constant pool to ExtWeakSymbols set. Lauro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061220/1aaa0c7b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1021 bytes Desc: not available

So, a while back I got a compile error where the assembly was missing some whitespace between a .set and the identifier and tracked it down to this simple mistake that I just verified is still in the tree: Index: lib/Target/ARM/ARMTargetAsmInfo.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Target/ARM/ARMTargetAsmInfo.cpp (revision 48700) +++

I am implementing weak linkage support on the ARM backend and I noticed this code on the X86 and PPC backends: ------------------------------------------------ // If the initializer is a extern weak symbol, remember to emit the weak // reference! if (const GlobalValue *GV = dyn_cast<GlobalValue>(C)) if (GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage()) ExtWeakSymbols.insert(Mang->getValueName(GV));

Hi Lauro, Just a stylistic remark; In your "llvm.patch" file, there are tabs in these lines: + if (GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage()) { + ExtWeakSymbols.insert(GV); + } Others will need to review the patch for correctness, though. -bw On 12/20/06, Lauro Ramos Venancio <lauro.venancio at gmail.com> wrote: > Adds external weak symbols of constant pool to ExtWeakSymbols set.

without tabs Lauro 2006/12/20, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com>: > > Hi Lauro, > > Just a stylistic remark; In your "llvm.patch" file, there are tabs in > these lines: > > + if (GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage()) { > + ExtWeakSymbols.insert(GV); > + } > > Others will need to review the patch for correctness, though. >

Hi, I'm a little confused over the use of WeakDefDirective & getWeakDefDirective() as it seems to be used differently to WeakRefDirective & getWeakRefDirective(). WeakDefDirective seems to be a boolean, used by AsmPrinter::EmitLinkage(), to decide if special stuff needs to be done. As I just want "weak", I should leave WeakDefDirective as null. Is this right? It would be

Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached

The attached patches makes all backends print a .weak directive for zero initialized variables. GCC does it on x86-64 and ARM. I assume that it should be done on all architectures. The patch also adds a test to the ARM backend? Should I copy it to all backends? Comments? Thanks, Rafael P.S.: I find the doFinalization code a bit confusing. Would you welcome a cleanup patch? -------------- next

On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote: > The attached patches makes all backends print a .weak directive for > zero initialized variables. GCC does it on x86-64 and ARM. I assume > that it should be done on all architectures. > > The patch also adds a test to the ARM backend? Should I copy it to all > backends? I'm not sure this is right. C code like this:

> I'm not sure this is right. C code like this: > > int X; > > should compile to a .comm directive, not a .weak directive, right? right. According to GCC, "int x" should compile to ".comm x", but "int x __attribute__((weak))" should compile to --------------- .weak x x: .zero 4 --------------- It looks like we have a bug in

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, [UTF-8] Rafael Esp?ndola wrote: >> I'm not sure this is right. C code like this: >> >> int X; >> >> should compile to a .comm directive, not a .weak directive, right? > > right. > > According to GCC, "int x" should compile to ".comm x", but "int x > __attribute__((weak))" should compile to >

> Is there a semantic difference between the two? Just because GCC compiles > them to different things, it doesn't mean they do different things... Sorry for the long delay... On a x86 box I am able to use both declarations interchangeably. There is a problem if we have both a declaration and an use on the same file: We must print a ".weak" because of the use, but if we

>> The days of the old .ll parser are long gone, but is it too late to >> change? In case it is not, the attached patches implement just that >> :-) > I'm afraid you need to provide syntax autoupgrade until 4.0 Why, we moved to doing autoupgrade via bitcode quiet some time ago. There were quiet a few format changes to the .ll in the process. Cheers, Rafael

moving to llvmdev. It always amused me that we have @a = weak global ... but @b = alias weak ... I decided to dig why that is. The best I could find was http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1017#c15 Looking at some really old cold then suggests that the reason was that the old bison based parser hard a reduction for alias linkages and another one for global variable linkages. Putting the

Hi, there are three 'extra' directories under /lib/modules/<kernel>/ directories for each kernel version. Any one can explain what is the real functions for these three directories, and how to use them correctly? I found a document talks a little about it at http://linux.dell.com/files/presentations/Red_Hat_Summit_May_2006/Driver_Update_Model.pdf, but would like to know more real

Hi all, I'm wondering about the warnings I got below on an updated CentOS5 box: $ sudo rpm -ivh zaptel-modules-1.2.18-21.2664.2.6.18_8.1.6.el5.lc.i686.rpm WARNING: Can't read module /lib/modules/2.6.18-8.1.6.el5/weak-updates/wctdm24xxp.ko: No such file or directory <snip more similar warning> What is causing these warnings and how can I prevent them? Thanks for any pointers.

Community, I have an action in a controller that sends a quote to a customer. The quote is sent after we determine the price for the service. Until recently, we did this internally and everything was fine except one time. When it happened, I thought it was a fluke and ignored it. Recently, I added a remote employee that is performing this task. He has an internet connection that goes up

There is something seriously wrong with DBI support for SQL server. I have tried both DBI::ODBC and DBI:ADO and the following code always fails. ---------- Code require ''dbi'' host= "DEVELOPMENT_DATABASE_SERVER" database="adventureworks2000" username="someusername" password="Somepwd" db = DBI.connect("DBI:ADO:Provider=SQLOLEDB;Data