similar to: [LLVMdev] Building llvm-gcc4 on amd64

I am also trying to build llvm-gcc4 and llvm as you are on amd64 linux. I am currently running into the error "Did not get a target machine!" on the first file compiled by xgcc. Did you encounter this error at all? Also, what distribution did you use? GCC version, and target triple? Thanks, -Chandler Carruth On 12/10/06, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: >

Hi, I'm trying to compile some apps with the new llvm-gcc4 on amd64 linux to .bc files, rather than to the native code. The same process I used to build those apps before with llvm-gcc3 doesn't work: 1) export CC=llvm-gcc CXX=llvm-g++ CFLAGS="-g -fno-inline" CXXFLAGS="-g -fno-inline" 2) cd <whatever-app>; ./configure 3) make CFLAGS+=-emit-llvm

Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't been modified (yet) to include support for .bc files, but you're compiler is emitting byte code to the *.o files.

Hi, On 12/11/06, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote: > Here's where my issue about DTRT with llvm-gcc (or whatever your prefix > to llvm tools happens to be) resurfaces. I'm keenly aware that Chris > thinks that one really ought to be careful with having llvm-gcc emit > bytecode. But frankly, if that's the case, what's the point of emitting > byte

Chandler/Domagoj, On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:53 -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact > that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC > frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system > linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't > been modified

Seung, On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > this through code duplication. > -Chris If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, in many cases you can even avoid code duplication. See this paper for details: @inproceedings{erosa94taming, author = {Ana M.

On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > Seung, > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > this through code duplication. > > -Chris > > > If you are willing to invest more effort into a more complicated analysis, > in many cases you

Daniel, On 8/30/07, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > On 8/29/07, Domagoj Babic <babic.domagoj at gmail.com> wrote: > > Seung, > > > > On 8/25/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > Ok. Note that LLVM can represent irreducible loops. You can handle > > > this through code duplication. > > > -Chris >

On Sep 29, 2006, at 2:05 PM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > > Check out scc_* iterators. Also note that the call graph > is not aware of the indirect calls, so you will need to write your > own CG implementation if you need to handle function pointers > soundly. > Chris, is this true? If so, it seems like a bad property for the CallGraphSCCPass framework. --Vikram

Hi all, On 11/28/06, Reid Spencer <rspencer at reidspencer.com> wrote: > * Venue: West Coast, USA. Probably either San Francisco Bay Area or > Seattle > * Time Frame: Post 2.0 release, summer 2007 > * Topics: Anything related to use or development of LLVM I'd vote for Seattle. The costs of organization should be lower than in the Bay Area. > * An indication of how

Hi, I am getting the following build error while building llvm on RHEL5. Please help me fix this: gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/rhel5pdi/home/asin/llvm_install/tools/llvm-config' /rhel5pdi/home/asin/llvm_install/Release/bin/llvm-config: line 18: use: command not found /rhel5pdi/home/asin/llvm_install/Release/bin/llvm-config: line 19: use: command not found

On Sun, May 29, 2011 at 4:37 PM, Arjun Singri <arjunsingri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I am getting the following build error while building llvm on RHEL5. Please > help me fix this: > gmake[2]: Leaving directory > `/rhel5pdi/home/asin/llvm_install/tools/llvm-config' > /rhel5pdi/home/asin/llvm_install/Release/bin/llvm-config: line 18: use: > command not found >

Dear LLVMers, This email is intended for those interested in path-sensitive analysis, integer overflow analysis, static analysis, and (perhaps) loop invariant computation. Traditionally, such analyses have been considered too expensive to be practical, and were mostly an academic curiosity. The core of the problem is the lack of adequate automated decision procedures which could quickly

On Oct 2, 2007, at 1:03 AM, Domagoj Babic wrote: > Hi all, > > I have the same problem. My guess is that when a structure > is passed as a parameter, you cast it into an array for optimization > reasons (less parameters, less stack space). This is not an optimization. This behavior is to be ABI complaint when emitting code for your OS. That said, this is not a very good way to

Hi, Here's something I don't understand... How come that UNDEF can appear as a branch condition at all? I just can't think of any ways. If you write something like fun() { int x; if (x > 100) { ... } else { ... } } LLVM generates a boolean temporary that compares (uninitialized) value of x with 100. Second, if it already can appear, isn't that a bug that

Daniel Berlin wrote: > Nick Lewycky wrote: > >>I found that "undef" was disappearing early into the optimization chain. >>SCCP was the culprit, transforming: >> >> br bool undef, label %T, label %F >> >>into >> >> br bool true, label %T, label %F >> >>While that sounds like a great optimization, it shouldn't be

Hi everybody! I recently started using llvm in a project on inferring additional information about pointers based on their types, casts, etc. The following simple example is giving me a headache :): typedef struct { int a; short b, c; int d, e, f; } foo; void bar(foo f) { short s; s = f.b; } int main(void) { foo p; bar(p); } Because llvm doesn't allow structures and arrays

LLVMers, The LLVM Oversight group is trying to assess whether there is sufficient interest in the LLVM development community for holding an LLVM Conference next summer. If getting together with your fellow LLVM Developers sounds interesting to you, please respond to me (off list) and I'll summarize the results. Here's our current thinking: * Venue: West Coast, USA. Probably either San

I have a FunctionPass F that needs a list of all the SCCs for use in its doFinalization() method. Let's say I write a CallGraphSCCPass C that creates an array of all SCCs. Let C be required by F, and let F call getAnalysis<C>() from its doFinalization() method. Am I guaranteed that C's runOnSCC() method will have executed on all SCCs before F's doFinalization() method?

Hi, I've noticed that http://llvm.org/status/ hasn't been updated for a while, so I tought that some of you might find the following information interesting and/or encouraging... For benchmarking the stuff I'm working on I needed to compile a number of open-source packages. The settings I used: AS=llvm-as lLD=llvm-ld AR=llvm-ar CXX=llvm-g++ CC=llvm-gcc CFLAGS="-g