similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM as a DLL

On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 16:30 +1000, kr512 wrote: > Michael T. Richter wrote: > > Apparently the APIs in the LLVM docs missed your > > attention. They're sneaky that way because, you know, > > they just form the bulk of available documentation. > I began my original message saying that I was providing > "constructive criticism". That means I want to

Jon Harrop wrote: > Can you explain why you would like to generate DLLs on the > customer's computer rather than using LLVM as a JIT > compiler? Customers/clients unhappy with the inefficiency, extra CPU and RAM usage, and performance penalty of JIT. They require a faster, more efficient solution. The solution is to fully compile programs to native code at the time of

I wrote: > The Solution: Make LLVM usable as a DLL or SLL in Windoze, > capable of generating a finished ready-to-execute .EXE or > .DLL file, without requiring that MinGW or Cygwin be > installed first. Michael T. Richter replied: > You will be welcomed with open arms by the LLVM community > when you write this. I look forward to your announcement > with bated breath.

me22.ca wrote: > You said that if I have to install GCC, you might as well > just use it for everything. That statement very clearly > doesn't apply anymore, since it's binutils that's the > dependency. Or if you still stand by it, it means that > you consider GCC to also be "incomplete". How do I get the necessary binutils on Windoze? Install MinGW or

Hi there LLVM is a great idea, congratulations. Do you mind if I give you a little bit of constructive criticism from the point of view of a developer who would like to use LLVM as a back-end? I will write this email from the point of view of MS Windows, but the same applies to MacOS and Linux. LLVM is difficult/awkward to use in a real-world environment/situation. To solve this problem,

Owen Anderson wrote: > There's nothing particularly stopping you from having your > installation package include copies of gas and ld, I disagree. gas and ld are not available on Windoze, except via MinGW. Yes I can make or tell my customers to install MinGW, but if MinGW is installed, then I don't need LLVM. (More about this further ahead) > You're welcome to think

Chris Lattner wrote: > If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing > you to use LLVM. No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing part could be supplied. > You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. > Please go inform yourself. Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it

On May 13, 2008, at 1:30 AM, kr512 wrote: > > Nevertheless, LLVM is not provided as a ready-to-use DLL, > unfortunately. This is exactly why I asked if you had downloaded and compiled it. If you had, you might have noticed that it does produce a set of ready-to- use shared libraries. I'm sorry that it did not build for you under Visual Studio, but patches are welcome. In the

> There's also then entire GNU toolchain, through MinGW and/or Cygwin. Which works perfectly right now without any extra tweaking :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hi Chris, > The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting intel mode for use with GAS > and it's "intel syntax mode" (which does use registers with %'s). > Unfortunately GAS has (or commonly available versions have) a number > of bugs in intel syntax mode (e.g. you can't define a function named > 'dword'), so we switched to using AT&T syntax. Ah, OK.

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think you've actually tested that, have you? (x86-64) Oh, you're right, for constants > 5 bits you have that other thing going on. I didn't think about the fact that the constant changed in the middle of the thread (it started out as 1). We use the gcc constraint

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > >> >> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >> >> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html > > That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now,

On 07/14/2013 12:49 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I don't think you've actually tested that, have you? (x86-64) > > Oh, you're right, for constants > 5 bits you have that other thing > going on. I didn't think about the fact that the constant changed in > the

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Aaron Gray wrote: > >>>>> Sure, but presumably you want to differentiate between nasm and >>>>> masm (if they are not compatible) right? >>>> >>>> >>>> Right >>> >>> >>> Then you need something more specific than 'isWindows'. I'd

Hi, It doesn't compile with yasm, or nasm (reports invalid combination of opcode and operands), and mov _x,EAX is meaningless as _x is just a label (an numeric constant that happens to be an address), so it would have to be dereferenced to get to the memory at that address, otherwise it's like saying mov 0x12341234, EAX Now, my asm skills are not that great, so I'm prepared to be

Yes, you are right. During my testings, I tried the llvm produced .S files with the gcc frontend and it compiled and linked them to the final executable. The problem is with the gcc and binutils licence. This is GPL and while this is ok for open source or for academic purposes, it can't be used on commercial projects. In fact one of the strong points of llvm (and clang) is its BSD like

On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. > "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many > important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". Wow. It's perhaps too much of a distraction, but I'm curious about the details of this. It's probably because

Hey, I've been trying this for a couple days now, finding different assemblers and trying different options but I can't figure it out.. I must be missing something very obvious. I got a simple "hello world" app in llvm, making the .bc file using 'llvm-as test.llvm -o=test.bc' works fine. then I can use llvm-ld to make an executable which then runs fine (although not

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > We know. Someone offered to do the Intel version, but did little more than a > huge cut and paste of the AT&T version and then lost interest. No one else > has had the time or inclination to finish the (barely begun) job. Patches > accepted :) Actually, that's not true. The LLVM X86 backend started out emitting intel mode for

>On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Gaster, >Benedict<Benedict.Gaster at amd.com> wrote: >> I would like to use the LLVM x86 code generator to emit Intel syntax that >> is >> compatible with Microsoft’s MASM 9.x. Taking the TOT LLVM, from last >> week, I >> have found a number of changes that are required to make this work, most >> of >> which