similar to: [LLVMdev] MS assembler support

Hello, Benedict >As far as I can tell it seems that the LLVM x86 backend targets GNU >assembler with DWARF for debug and there is not a way, currently, to >output for MS assembler with COFF debug info. Is this correct or am I >just looking at the wrong part? Multiple issues here, actually. First of all, there is "X86IntelAsmPrinter", which outputs MASM-compatible assembler.

Hi Anton, Ok maybe I should have stated what it was that I wanted to do. In this context I would like to compile C code, with LLVM, to MS proprietary CV format that can be linked and debugged with Visual Studio, but from what you are saying this is not currently possible. Thanks, Ben -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On

Hello, > If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another > version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I > can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just > ask me what you need. This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider using current svn top of tree, not 2.3 release. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

2008/9/21 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: > Hello, > >> If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another >> version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I >> can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just >> ask me what you need. > This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider

Hi! I think llvm-mc did amazing work and I'm stunned ;). - So I start reading source-code and making notes. To my question: At which state is the disassembly for PEcoff or ELF? I read the blog (http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html): """ The MC components have been designed to be object file independent (e.g. work for MachO, ELF, PE-COFF etc) but only have

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > 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

Hello, Chuck > I've had a look at the stubs before and I think I'm circumventing them > in the example program since I populate the table and compile the > functions in the order so that things never need to be done lazily, but > I'll look further. Well, anyway stubs are definitely wrong from windows64 and this should be fixed, otherwise funny stuff can happen from time to

Hello, Benedict > Ok maybe I should have stated what it was that I wanted to do. In this > context I would like to compile C code, with LLVM, to MS proprietary CV > format that can be linked and debugged with Visual Studio, but from what > you are saying this is not currently possible. Ah, then - yes. I doubt, that LLVM mainline will support any proprietary debugging format sometime.

Hi Rui, Not sure if you have seen this problem, but I have been running into this problem when I run the lld tests and the failure occurence is once in 5 times. lld: ../tools/lld/lib/Core/Resolver.cpp:402: void lld::Resolver::deadStripOptimize(): Assertion `symAtom' failed. #0 0x4b05ae llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*)

Hello everyone, I was following the discussion, but I have to admit, that my skills aren't high enough to follow you guys. For my current exception problem, I don't have to stick around with the PECOFF format, so I used clang to don't compile to a PECOFF, but to a ELF file. Interesting, now I'm missing the functions: __cxa_allocate_exception __cxa_throw _ZTI I loaded the DLL

> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax > assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is > not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio > doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to write out .o > files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF

Hi, Oscar > at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list > inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename a > .cpp file. Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding directory? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

+ Nick Rui, Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use References if other flavors dont need the

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the --x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is an obvious question)? I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the output, the one thing it didn't like was

On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t >> syntax >> assemblers. It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and >> MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler. This is why visual >> studio >> doesn't go through it. Long term, we'd like

Historically? I implemented support for exceptions back in LLVM 3.3, before LLVM had an implementation of a Windows unwinder. Currently? As recent as LLVM 4.0, I don't think the JIT was fully capable of handling COFF files, and LLVM wouldn't emit the correct sections (with the COFF-formatted unwind tables) when used in ELF mode. The prolog is known to be standard since Julia disables FPO

Did pecoff support means we can linkage llvm generated obj files to msvc's obj files? 2010/1/22, Jim Crafton <jim.crafton at gmail.com>: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax >> assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual

We are modeling target specific functionally using references, Doesn't your idea defeat the purpose of the atom model? Atoms are mostly target neutral and yaml/native format represents just an atom. Having a derived class for atoms will have a impact on the testing method with lld IMO. We could continue to model using references in my opinion and add some meta data information in the atom

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

Hello, Kevin > build process I described in my original message. So the difference is > more subtle; maybe a difference in the layout of structs or something. Also, there can be another ABI differences. > llvmoutput.c:17976: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of > 'longjmp' differ in signedness Hrm, are you using setjmp/longjmp stuff? They're definitely not