similar to: [LLVMdev] Build failure on x86_64

For VC++, I solved this by having bison/flex put the files into the obj directories. I also have it unconditionally regenerate the files if bison/flex is available, and copy them from src if they are not. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Vladimir A. Merzliakov wrote: > >> I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs >>

No solutions come to mind. Conflicts are conflicts and must be resolved manually. This situation should only occur if you change the .l/.y file and then update the .h/.cpp files after someone else has changed the .l/.y file and regenerated the .h and .cpp. That doesn't seem like a high frequency scenario that we need to worry about. Not sure there's much we could do even if it was. Reid.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Vladimir A. Merzliakov wrote: > I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030639.html > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030654.html This is most likely because you have conflict markers in the generated files in the lib/AsmParser directory. Try removing

I can't build LLVM CFE after this patchs http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030639.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20060109/030654.html Build terminated with messages: --8X---------------------------------------------- llvm[2]: Compiling Lexer.cpp for Debug build In file included from

2 new warnings in llvm: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function 'bool llvm::LLParser::ParseGlobal(const std::string&, const char*, unsigned int, bool, unsigned int)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:446: warning: 'IsConstant' may be used uninitialized in this function

A new warning: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function 'bool llvm::LLParser::ParseGlobal(const std::string&, const char*, unsigned int, bool, unsigned int)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:448: warning: 'IsConstant' may be used uninitialized in this function

I have a new instruction that takes 2 labels, and in SelectionDAGISel, I have it doing "CurMBB->addSuccessor()" for both machine blocks. The DAG node it creates also takes both blocks as SDOperands. When I lower to x86, the not-fallthrough block disappears. If I run llc with --fast, the blocks stay around, so it must be an optimization pass of some sort that doesn't realize my

These warnings started appearing recently when building LLVM: llvm[2]: Compiling LLParser.cpp for Release build /Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function ‘bool llvm::LLParser::ParseBr(llvm::Instruction*&, llvm::LLParser::PerFunctionState&)’: /Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:3195: warning: ‘Op1’ may be used uninitialized in

On Tue, Nov 07, 2006 at 10:39:46PM -0800, Tanya M. Lattner wrote: > cvs -d <CVS Repository> co -r release_19 llvm I'm getting a build error: llvm[2]: Compiling llvmAsmParser.cpp for Release build /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y: In function `int llvmAsmparse()': /rest/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y:2105: error: expected `;' before '}' token

Hi, I was building LLVM with gcc 6.1.1 recently and it was spitting out some warnings relating to misleading indention that caught my eye. This wasn't a fresh build so I may have missed some. I've CC'ed the authors of the potentially misleading lines so they can decide what do about the warnings (if anything). I'm wondering if clang-format is making some inappropriate choices

Hello Tim, Thank you for getting back to me. The language grammar as defined by the LLVM Language Reference Manual [1] does not include the details of the LLVM IR parser reference implementation. The following extract from "lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp" illustrates that unnamed globals are allowed [2]. > /// ParseUnnamedGlobal: > /// OptionalVisibility (ALIAS | IFUNC) ...

Hello; I was planning to add a new instruction to the LLVM IR (and later to MIPS backend) for TLS(Thread level speculation) support. For this I tried to follow the steps described in http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM dot html#instruction. But I could not find any llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l and llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y file in both the svn repository and the source code downloaded

Hi Alex, We've only recently managed to get the core scalable vector IR type into the codebase (so it will be present in 9.0); that allows you to write IR with scalable vector types, but there's no backend able to generate code for it yet, and as you mention no support for stepvector (or vscale). Arm will start upstreaming those soon. -Graham > On 13 Jul 2019, at 14:32, Alex Susu via

Hi all, I have been experimenting with getting LLVM to build with MSVC8 express. I have succeeded in getting trunk to build and run the Fibonacci example in release mode. I have found various minor problems with the build system. First, it appears not to be able to run the configure subproject commands if there is a space in the directory path. Secondly, it fails to build different subprojects

Hi, I'm wondering why lib/AsmParser/LLParser handles fast-math flags in the following IR: ... %val = fmul nnan double 1.0, 1.0 ... but doesn't allow any flags if "fmul" is inside "phi": ... %val = phi double [ fmul (double 1.0, double 1.0), %cond.true ], [ fmul (double 1.0, double 1.0), %cond.false ] ...

Hello, It is likely that I missing something however I have to ask. We are working on Mull project https://github.com/mull-project which deals with LLVM IR in the first place so it is often that we encounter errors like the following one when we do things like parseAssemblyString(IR, Err, GlobalCtx);`: ``` test: <string>:7237:187: error: invalid field 'variable' !1526 = distinct

+llvm-dev Can you give a bit of background on what you're trying to address here? After reading through the discussion and seeing that this is a best effort flag, I'm not sure that a function attribute is the best way to describe this. I'm open to being convinced it is, but I'd like to hear a bit more about the use case and get broader visibility on the proposal first.

(gah, this turned into a huge digression, sorry) The implicit numbering of BB's seems to be a pretty frequent issue for people. Surprisingly, the issue boils down to simply changing the IR asm (.ll file) syntax so that it can have "unnamed BB's" in a recognizable way that fits in with how unnamed values work (the asmprinter makes an effort to print a comment with the BB number,

Thanks for the lecture :) But I was not planning on changing a single line in LLVM/Clang. I stick to the documentation until I've learned to swim, perhaps even forever. Ah, now I see. You thought I meant "should I modify the code to do this or that." I only meant to change the documentation. Please refer to the patch I've sent on LLVM-commits. That's about what I had

So far, I'm building largely clean too. I had to change which llvmAsmParser it was looking at since it needs to look at the generated file under the win32\AsmParser directory rather than ...\lib\AsmParser where no such file exists. After that, it compiles clean on debug. Working on release now and then I'll check that change in. Quang, do you have flex and bison on your system and in