similar to: [LLVMdev] global symbols converted to local symbols

As a follow up, if I first convert x.bc to a c file using llc -march=c -o x.c x.bc, and then I use normal gcc to convert x.c to an executable, f() remains a global symbol. Is llvm-nm incorrectly converting the global symbols to local symbols? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I have a bitcode file x.bc. When I run llmv-nm on x.bc, it shows that a > function f(), that I've written, is

Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Ryan M. Lefever wrote: >> I have a bitcode file x.bc. When I run llmv-nm on x.bc, it shows that a >> function f(), that I've written, is defined as a global function (text) >> object, i.e., llvm-nm shows it marked with a 'T'. I have converted x.bc >> to an executable with the following command: llvm-ld -native -o x.exe >>

I am trying to upgrade to the latest version of LLVM from svn. My transformations compile correctly, but when I go to run them I get a symbol lookup error. In particular, I have 2 libraries that I compile for use with opt called libaux.so and libmyxform.so. libaux.so implements functions that are used by libmyxform.so. When I run: ------- /llvm/bin/opt

Does llvm-gcc support the -fPIC option? I am using LLVM on both 32 bit linux and 64 bit linux, if that matters. Regards, Ryan -- Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~lefever/index.html]

To what do variable size LLVM alloca instructions get translated, when they are turned into machine code? I compiled a piece of code to bitcode and disassembled it. The disassembled code showed that there were alloca instructions with variable-sized parameters within the bitcode. When I turned the bitcode into machine code, I performed an nm on the result but didn't see any symbols

Yup! -bw On Nov 3, 2008, at 7:39 PM, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > Does llvm-gcc support the -fPIC option? I am using LLVM on both 32 > bit > linux and 64 bit linux, if that matters. > > Regards, > Ryan > > -- > Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.crhc.uiuc.edu/~lefever/index.html] > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list >

On my 32 bit linux box, things seam to work find, but on my 64 bit linux box I am getting problems. I have the following c file (lib.c): -------------------------------- #include <stdio.h> void libmethod(){ printf("libmethod()\n"); } ------------------------------- I tried to get a shared library using the following commands: llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -Wall -fPIC -c -o lib.opt.bc

I don't mean to be a pain, but I was thinking about this a bit more. Does gcc ignore the const keyword? If not, why has LLVM chosen to deviate from gcc with respect to the const keyword? If so, then why do we bother using const in LLVM API code? I'm just curious and wanted to understand the thinking behind not preserving const. Thanks, Ryan Chris Lattner wrote: > This property

I think I misread the doxygen. verifyFunction & verifyModule return false if no errors are detected. However, my question now becomes why does the code produced by my transform pass verification, but it causes an assertion failure in the byte reader when it (the code produced by my transform) is passed to another invocation of opt? Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I also tried iterating

I have been working on a compilation process that involves steps such as passing an application through transforms that I've written and combining the application with support code that I've written. When I compile an application using my compilation process without debugging, (i.e., "llvm-gcc -g"), everything works fine. However, when I compile an application using my

I don't follow what you mean - gcc doesn't ignore const and llvm doesn't deviate from gcc nor from the relevant language standards. Note that if you declare a global as const that we do capture this in the ir - what specifically do you want? Please provide an example. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 14, 2007, at 11:58 PM, "Ryan M. Lefever"

This property isn't preserved on the llvm ir, because const can always be cast away. If you want mod information, then I suggest using the aliasanalysis interface to get mod ref info for a call. -Chris http://nondot.org/sabre http://llvm.org On Aug 8, 2007, at 12:07 AM, "Ryan M. Lefever" <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > How is c's const keyword translated

How is c's const keyword translated when compiling c into llvm bytecode. I'm specifically interested in const pointer function arguments. Consider a function declared as follows in c: void f(const int* arg); When I examine f in llvm bytecode, how can I tell that arg is a pointer, whose contents can only be read, not written. Regards, Ryan

I checked out llvm from cvs & llvm-gcc from svn last night and again tonight. Each time they compiled and installed fine. After installing them, I recompiled compiler transforms I had written for opt. opt seems to load the my transform libraries fine, but it complains: opt: Unknown command line argument '-mytransform' whenever I try to specify one of my transforms on the opt

Forgot to hit "Reply All." -- John T. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: Re: using dsa Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:53:43 -0600 Size: 3103 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070306/ef7c2f29/attachment.mht>

This has been reported. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1317 On 4/10/07, Ryan M. Lefever <lefever at crhc.uiuc.edu> wrote: > > I checked out llvm from cvs & llvm-gcc from svn last night and again > tonight. Each time they compiled and installed fine. After installing > them, I recompiled compiler transforms I had written for opt. opt seems > to load the my

Hi, I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. int func() { const int *arr; arr[0] = 1; } $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? 0 $ gcc main.c -c main.c: In function 'func': main.c:4: error: assignment of read-only location The difference disappears when arr[0] is replaced by *arr. (I tried the above with gcc 4.1.2, 3.4.6, 4.0.3. (I don't

Is a PR a bug report on the bugzilla database? I am also running bugpoint to see if that yields anything. Reid Spencer wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > >>I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: >> >>llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm >> >>However, I am getting the

I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode verification. I'm not too familiar with backend code generation. Does anyone have any insight in to what the problem might be or how to go about

Hi Ryan, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 13:34 -0500, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I am running the following llvm-ld command to produce native code: > > llvm-ld -native -o code.exe code.bc -lm > > However, I am getting the following assertion failure in llc. The > bytecode has been processed with opt, it passes opt bytecode > verification. I'm not too familiar with backend