similar to: [LLVMdev] Simple user question

Hello, Luke > Is there any way to convince llvm-gcc to use llvm-ld during linking rather > than the system ld? If there isn't then I'll have to muck with the build a bit > more to add something like FINAL_CXX, but everyone will see that and it may > generate a bit of annoyance (and will need to be another thing that is > modified for our public releases). You can try to

Pre-empting Chris's inevitable response: don't add intrinsics! I really like the 'disappearing function calls' idea. Chris suggested practically the same thing for a previous question about adding BigInt support. Anthony, whichever route you take in the end, please consider documenting your 'code adventure' on the wiki so others can learn from your experience. Justing

Thanks for the quick responses. "disappearing function calls" is by far the preferred way for me, as I want my pass to work with standard LLVM and not a hacked version that supports extra pragmas, or intrinsics. I am just new to LLVM and wanted to make sure that there isn't already a mechanism for passing meta-data between the user and the optimizer. I am planning to

You could encode this information as simple library function calls and then find them again in the generated LLVM IR. The client then just needs a header declaring the functions and information on what they mean. Since there are never any definitions of them they won't end up going anywhere. A more ambitious plan would be to modify llvm-gcc with new __builtins and create intrinsics in

I have gold from cvs, and llvm-gcc/llvm from svn. My platform is Ubuntu 9.04 x86_64. I've configured llvm-gcc with "--enable-multilib". When compiling the LTO example from http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html I have no problems with 64-bit compilation, but get the following with -m32. luked at node:~/tests/lto$ make USE32=1 llvm-gcc -m32 -c -o main.o main.c llvm-gcc

Thanks for providing me with those examples. My rather inefficient pass, which inherits from ModulePass, currently iterates through the Module, Functions, and BasicBlocks multiple times (once to find strcpy, another to find strcat, and so on for various other functions). If I only care about the direct calls, would I benefit more from switching to multiple use_iterators or the InstVisitor

Hi, I have about one year of experience with Asterisk, working with ZAP (digium, junghanns) ZAPHFC, SIP and IAX. These technologies are quite clear to me, the problem is that I have no experience with H323, but now, I need to use this also. The problem that I have is very trivial, so I think that this should be a very easy question for you guys whom know how it works. All I want to do,

If you're on the new Makefile system, you will want to update your Makefile.rules. The patch below provides some important fixes for parallel builds and dependencies. It also adds some new features like the -local targets. For example, you can now build "all-local" to build the local directory without recursing into subdirectories. See the comments below for details of the change.

On 30 August 2010 12:43, Luke Dalessandro <luked at cs.rochester.edu> wrote: > I have gold from cvs, and llvm-gcc/llvm from svn. My platform is > Ubuntu 9.04 x86_64. I've configured llvm-gcc with "--enable-multilib". > > When compiling the LTO example from > http://llvm.org/docs/LinkTimeOptimization.html I have no problems with > 64-bit compilation, but get

Luke Dalessandro wrote: > OK. So I've discovered --with-sysroot which seems to be grabbing and > patching the include files correctly. Now it's dieing with > > ./options.h:462: error: 'HOST_BITS_PER_INT' undeclared here (not in a > function) > ./options.h:462: error: bit-field 'padding' width not an integer constant > > which appears to be

Mike Stump wrote: > On Oct 31, 2008, at 1:10 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: >> I've started trying by trying to get sparc-sun-solaris2.10 (niagara) >> working. It appears that neither llvm nor llvm-gcc will build natively >> on the system, so I think that I need to build an llvm-gcc cross >> compiler. > > Get a gcc binary from someplace, use that to then build

On Apr 14, 2009, at 1:49 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > > On Apr 14, 2009, at 12:48 PM, Brice Lin wrote: > >> I just read the LLVM Programmer's Manual, which mentions (but >> specifically does not include any details of) the InstVisitor >> template. Could someone please provide an example of how to use this >> template to find (as an example) all CallSites for

I have a function (see below). This function has one object, ID. If I run the loops by themselves using a character value (ie,"VFFF1-7") instead of the function object, then the loops work fine. However, when I try to insert the character value via the function call, it doesn't work. I don't get an error, but the TotalCover.df dataframe does not update according to the loop

Thanks for your valuable input. By the way, I am exporting CC=llvm-gcc and RANLIB=llvm-ranlib for projects that use it. It was a mistake not to write it in the post as apache indeed uses gcc. If you see the error message, you would see llvm-gcc being used. I would try to investigate further on the lines you have mentioned. However, the question that stands is how to best handle failure to compile

Hello Is there a "generic" pragma that is supported by LLVM and is visible by optimization passes? or any other way for a programmer to pass meta-data information to the compiler? I am writing an analysis pass that could benefit from user provided information. At this stage, I could like to keep the kind of information that the user can provide as general as possible.

Hi, a while back I wrote that the llvm makefiles didn't create the correct kind of file for use on darwin with -load. Since then, both the shared library and makefile system have been overhauled significantly. So I checked again - as updated from CVS, the current makefiles don't build the right object type on darwin. If you follow the advice of 'Writing an LLVM Pass" tutorial,

Hi, I copied the code from LLVM2.6 below. line 81 removes 'I' from the worklist. But 'I' is already removed from the list at line 67 when it is popped from the list. Could the loop (line 73-75) insert this I into the worklist again? In the case where 'I' can be constant-folding, Line 80 says 'I' is a dead instruction. Can 'I' appears in its def-use chain?

For these simple compile tests where we want to ensure that a basic external program could be compiled using libnbd, we shouldn't include <config.h>. This is because we want to test here that <libnbd.h> can stand alone, without needing anything defined by the GNU autotools infrastructure. Of course we can use <config.h> in other test programs where we aren't evaluating

Folks, As of the writing of this note, the llvmc tool is enabled for build on the CVS head. I'm encouraging you to try it out, provide some feedback, and help with the issues below. llvmc is now able to correctly link a pure bytecode version of any Stacker program. This includes translation with stkrc, optimization with opt and linking with llvm-link. It is also able to find Stacker's

Luke Dalessandro wrote: > S. Bharadwaj Yadavalli wrote: >> $ ../../../src/llvm-gcc-4.2/configure >> --prefix=<llvm-root>/install/x86_64-arm/llvm-gcc-4.2 >> --program-prefix=llvm-x86_64-arm >> --enable-llvm=<llvm-root>/install/x86_64-arm/llvm >> --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-multilib >> --target=arm-unknown-linux-gnueabi > > I