similar to: [LLVMdev] "has different visibility" warnings

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016763.html On 2008-09-05, at 22:46, Talin wrote: > Recently I started getting these warnings - thousands of them - and > I'm > not sure what I did to cause them or how to solve them: > > ld: warning llvm::MemoryBuffer::getBufferStart() const has different > visibility (1) in

Hi, My apologies if this appears to be a very trivial question -- I have tried to solve this on my own and I am stuck. Any assistance that could be provided would be immensely appreciated. What is the absolute bare minimum that I need to do to disassemble an array of, say, ARM machine code bytes? Or an array of Thumb machine code bytes? For example, I might have an array of unsigned chars -- how

Hi Aiden, The easiest thing I can do is to point you to the source of the "llvm-mc" tool, which does exactly what you ask in its "-disassemble" mode. The code is rather small, so it should be easy to work out. tools/llvm-mc Cheers, James -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Aidan Steele Sent:

Hi Aiden, The 'C' based interface you could use in is llvm/include/llvm-c/Disassembler.h, which in there is: /** * Disassemble a single instruction using the disassembler context specified in * the parameter DC. The bytes of the instruction are specified in the * parameter Bytes, and contains at least BytesSize number of bytes. The * instruction is at the address specified by the

I'm trying to link two modules together using the C++ API, one that's a sort of library module and one that's being generated from the source language. If I have something like this: OwningPtr<MemoryBuffer> owning_ptr; if (MemoryBuffer::getFile(StringRef("../hello.bc"), owning_ptr)) std::cout << "error opening file" << std::endl; Module* Lib

On May 8, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >> For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new >> llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: >> >> /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory >> /// buffer

And for this kind of question I think I would better hold in. There would be more important issue worth on this list. For this reason I am sorry. Sincerely Journeyer 2013/1/15 Journeyer J. Joh <oosaprogrammer at gmail.com>: > Hi Justin Holewinski, > >>> As far as I know, there is not a good way to implement user prompts with the LLVM APIs. > > This info helps me a

Hi Justin Holewinski, >> As far as I know, there is not a good way to implement user prompts with the LLVM APIs. This info helps me a lot. I tried to do a thing that is not possible. Thank you very much. Sincerely Journeyer 2013/1/15 Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com>: > Is this for user prompts, or just reading data from stdin? You can use >

On May 8, 2012, at 4:08 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 8, 2012, at 3:41 PM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: >>> For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new >>> llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: >>>

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 12:56 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new > llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: > > /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory > /// buffer which when done will be written to a file. During the lifetime > of >

For the reasons listed in my 03-May-2012 email, I am proposing a new llvm/Support class for using in writing binary files: /// OutputBuffer - This interface provides simple way to create an in-memory /// buffer which when done will be written to a file. During the lifetime of /// these objects, the content or existence of the specified file is undefined. /// That is, creating an OutputBuffer

Hi, LLVM community, I found an issue in my using scenario. We deliberately parse a bitcode file twice. It contains a named struct type. eg. %struct.cmd = type { float, float, float, float, float, i32 }. In the second module->dump, %struct.cmd becomes %struct.cmd0. my code is simplified like this. int main() { llvm::LLVMContext &llvmCtx = llvm::getGlobalContext(); string ErrMsg;

On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Jordan Rose <jordan_rose at apple.com> wrote: > I don't have much to add here besides +1. I think using std::unique_ptr > even for create* functions/methods is the right way to go. +1 smart pointers here are a win in terms of safety and self-documentation. I don't see why create* factories should be treated differently. Eli >

I'm getting an error when trying to build llvm 2.2's tblgen: llvm[2]: Linking Release executable tblgen (without symbols) /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: llvm::MemoryBuffer::getFileOrSTDIN(char const*, unsigned int, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >*, long long) llvm::cl::ParseCommandLineOptions(int, char**, char const*) It's

Hi Folks, I am building LLVM 3.9.1 using the Yocto build system for a cross build. The compiled bins/libs work totally fine on the target machine however there seems to be an intermittent race condition during the build which causes a build failure. On the failed builds I usually see things being linking/compiling twice e.g. Linking CXX static library ../libLLVMSupport.a cd

There seems to be some uncertainty about the use of smart pointers (previously OwningPtr, now std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr predominantly) in the LLVM project as a whole, so here's a thread to discuss/clarify/etc the project preferences/direction with regard to smart pointer usage. For some context, see discussions in LLVM r212403 and Clang r213307. The basic question here seems to be

Heres my full code listing, im totally stuck. // Whistle.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include "stdafx.h" #include "clang/CodeGen/CodeGenAction.h" #include "clang/Driver/Compilation.h" #include "clang/Driver/Driver.h" #include "clang/Driver/Tool.h" #include

Hi Kev and James, Thanks to both of you for responding. I had looked at the otool release published for 10.7.2 (cctools-800), but it seems that it only snuck in after that and by the cctools-809 release! In any case, both that and llvm-mc should be more than adequate! A follow-up question: is the C interface to LLVM a second-class citizen or should I reasonably be able to expect to do everything

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. diff --git include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h index 07ca070..afff96e 100644 --- include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h +++ include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h

New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Olivier. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Seems reasonable, but I haven't looked at the code yet. I would >>> suggest trying to split your work up into separate