similar to: [LLVMdev] "-emit-llvm" in llvm-gcc --help.

Hello, Jean-Christophe > Just a suggestion : I find it surprising that the option "-emit-llvm" is > not mentioned in the options of llvm-gcc --help. This is "common" gcc problem, because "gcc" binary is a driver. You will see the help string, if you run cc1 / cc1plus binary directly. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics &

Hello, Does a LL(k) grammar of LLVM assembly language exist somewhere ? Thanks JC

I'm interested in cleaning up the documentation for this, but it is in 4 different formats. From the makefile it looks like the .pod is the master. Do I need to do anything special after changing this to get it propagated elsewhere? On Jun 9, 2008, at 12:52 PMPDT, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Turner wrote: >> Just thought I'd mention this

On Jun 9, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Turner wrote: > Just thought I'd mention this to keep other people from stubbing > their toes on it... > > Using llvm-gcc/llvm-g++ and -emit-llvm, you need to make sure to > pass -S as well, like so: > > ./llvm-g++ -S -emit-llvm hello.cpp > > not: /llvm-g++ -emit-llvm hello.cpp > > I'm sure that's old news to

2007/11/22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > > Hi, > > > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > > llvm.sin.* > > For example: > > > > double foo(double x, double y) { > > return pow(x,y); > > } > > > > will compiled into ll: > > > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) {

Just thought I'd mention this to keep other people from stubbing their toes on it... Using llvm-gcc/llvm-g++ and -emit-llvm, you need to make sure to pass -S as well, like so: ./llvm-g++ -S -emit-llvm hello.cpp not: /llvm-g++ -emit-llvm hello.cpp I'm sure that's old news to most of the people on the list, but I thought it couldn't hurt to mention it in case other people happen

Hi, Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and llvm.sin.* For example: double foo(double x, double y) { return pow(x,y); } will compiled into ll: define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) ret double %tmp3 } This is not consistent with llvm language reference. -------------- next part -------------- An

Hi, > Current llvm-gcc cannot emit llvm intrinsic function like llvm.pow.* and > llvm.sin.* > For example: > > double foo(double x, double y) { > return pow(x,y); > } > > will compiled into ll: > > define double @foo(double %x, double %y) { > %tmp3 = tail call double @pow( double %x, double %y ) > ret double %tmp3 > } > > This is not

On Monday 09 June 2008 14:52, Dale Johannesen wrote: > It seems clear the current interface can be confusing; you are not the > first. Perhaps -emit-llvm should be renamed to indicate it does not > necessarily result in emitting llvm IR? > -output-format-llvm? Seems pretty ugly, maybe someone can do better. -mcpu=llvm? Yes, it may require some mucking around with config files, but

Hi, 2007/11/22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr>: > > PS: It is possible that the C front-end doesn't need to > explicitly produce BUILT_IN_POW because it is auto-synthesized > somehow from a call to "pow". I wouldn't know. One way to > find out is to compile a testcase and rummage around inside > the gcc trees when they hit llvm-convert. Yes, they

Hi, > Sure. But now the question is the llvm-gcc will not emit llvm.pow.* anytime. indeed there seems to be no code in llvm-gcc to do so, though there is code for raising to an integer power (in llvm-convert). Please feel free to investigate and add some. Presumably it should turn gcc's BUILT_IN_POW into llvm.pow.*. That said, as far as I can see the C front-end doesn't generate

Hi Duncan, But in the doc "Source Level Debugging with LLVM", it shows that llvm 2.6 could get column number. There's an example in the doc as following: http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html 1. void foo() { 2. int X = 21; 3. int Y = 22; 4. { 5. int Z = 23; 6. Z = X; 7. } 8. X = Y; 9. } Compiled to LLVM, this function would be represented

>> I assume you have an Mac with an Intel processor. > > Yes. Sorry, I forgot to mentioned it in the mailbody. > >> Download this: >> http://llvm.org/releases/1.8/llvm-gcc4-1.8-x86-darwin.tar.gz > > I think that is the same tarball I used before. Ok. I'm confused. Do you want llvm-gcc3 or llvm-gcc4? The tarball above is a binary for llvm-gcc4 for Mac x86. You

Hi, I tried llvm-gcc -g -O0 on several cases, but the column field of meta data always shows zero in created ll code. Does llvm-gcc emit column # info ? Or I should add some option? Thanks in advance. Sheng. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100426/76b52b1f/attachment.html>

PS: It is possible that the C front-end doesn't need to explicitly produce BUILT_IN_POW because it is auto-synthesized somehow from a call to "pow". I wouldn't know. One way to find out is to compile a testcase and rummage around inside the gcc trees when they hit llvm-convert.

Hi all, I am having an issue with permission that may be a bug. The issue happens when moving / copying a message from a folder to another : sometimes the message gets the wrong permission (umask). The typical use case is, inside a maildir box and within imap, moving a spam message to the spam folder. Then a cron script is supposed to access to it to feed the antispam database. I wish the

On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > I'm interested in cleaning up the documentation for this, but it is in > 4 different formats. > From the makefile it looks like the .pod is the master. Do I need to > do anything special > after changing this to get it propagated elsewhere? Nope, editing and committing the .pod file should be enough, thanks Dale! -Chris

On Jun 10, 2008, at 10:58 PMPDT, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> I'm interested in cleaning up the documentation for this, but it is >> in >> 4 different formats. >> From the makefile it looks like the .pod is the master. Do I need to >> do anything special >> after changing this to get it

>> Nope, editing and committing the .pod file should be enough, thanks >> Dale! > > Done, but I don't see any propagation....? I haven't really tested > this, was hoping to look at the html file... Docs are generated/updated once a day (2am I think). -Tanya > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at

On Jun 12, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >>> Nope, editing and committing the .pod file should be enough, thanks >>> Dale! >> >> Done, but I don't see any propagation....? I haven't really tested >> this, was hoping to look at the html file... > > Docs are generated/updated once a day (2am I think). > > -Tanya Sorry, I need