similar to: [LLVMdev] JIT target list empty

OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > How does a target register itself into that > list, I know it is a static constructor somewhere, but I am not sure > where... http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#msvc ? -- Oscar

OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes: >> Chris proposed on IRC to remove the Visual Studio project files and turn >> CMake into the "standard" for building LLVM with VC++. >> >> If you have strong arguments against this, please voice them. > > As long as instructions are supplied on how to pass in user defined > macros to the build system.

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:18 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes: > >>> Chris proposed on IRC to remove the Visual Studio project files and turn >>> CMake into the "standard" for building LLVM with VC++. >>> >>> If you have strong arguments against this, please voice them.

Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> writes: > In my opinion none of these are irrelevant. Mingw and cygwin are separate > ABIs that deal with some C compatibility (problems mentioned in this thread > are important here too) and give you the ability to work with low level C > libraries on windows, but if you want true compatibility with the full > platform > those ABIs

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> Also, now msvc support multiple target. So it's better to set it as >> ${LLVM_ALL_TARGETS} >> It's can working, why not set it to:. > > I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This > saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >

Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> But you put me on the right track. The problem is that the class is >> returned on the stack. Correction: The class is returned on the FP stack: >> 0x6e08b5b5 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+17>: fldl -0x8(%ebp) >> 0x6e08b5b8 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+20>: leave >> 0x6e08b5b9 <_ZN3Foo6GetFooEv+21>:

Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. Jose -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Allow-to-build-against-static-MSVC-runtime.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2055 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Chris proposed on IRC to remove the Visual Studio project files and turn CMake into the "standard" for building LLVM with VC++. If you have strong arguments against this, please voice them. -- Oscar

Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >> I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This >> saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >> executables. Anyways, it they want all targets, it is simply a matter of >> passing

OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> writes: [snip] > On this first compile everything compiled except for llc and lli, > which did not link due to: > unresolved external symbol "class llvm::FunctionPass * __cdecl > llvm::createPBQPRegisterAllocator(void)" That is because the lib/CodeGen project file is missing PBQP.cpp. [snip] > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:11

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 7:47 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > IIUC zlib availability is tested and the library used if present. Do you > mean that LLVM does not use zlib on Windows when the library is present? Sure, but if there aren't instructions for how to do it easily, then it's effectively unsupported. There isn't really a canonical way to

> On Aug 22, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Daniel Dilts <diltsman at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com <mailto:beanz at apple.com>> wrote: > Starting a new thread to loop in cfe-dev and lldb-dev. For those not following along there has been a thread on llvm-dev about moving the minimum required Visual Studio version to

Hi Eric, > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are their own ABIs No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences are exactly in unspecified area (e.g. passing / returning structs by value). The only difference is C++, where mingw / cygwin follows Itanium ABI and MSVC - its

AKA: MinGW + win32threads is holding LLVM (and all of its subprojects) back. We need to stop supporting this host platform. I'm aware of essentially 2 reasonably important use cases for supporting MinGW + win32threads: 1) Sane host toolchain on Windows that doesn't require downloading MSVC. (I'm dubious about the value of this one...) 2) Cross-compiling a Windows clang.exe (and

I did some looking up on that const thing. Apparently that const is 'supposed' to be there, but it is not strictly required. However there is a bug in VS2k3 (VS7) through VS2k8 (VS9) (no clue if it has been fixed yet) that requires it to be there when the functor is being called through a const qualified interface, such as through stl containers. They state that a bug report has been

Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> writes: > BTW, -fpcc-struct-return solves the case that motivated this thread. -fpcc-struct-return is an ABI change, hence it requires "compiling the world". Not acceptable. I'll be interested on hearing ideas about how to determine how a function returns a small struct, without knowing the internals of the struct. -- Oscar

2011/1/5 Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es>: > Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> writes: > >> Yeah that's the two different ones I mean. Everything MS (intrinsics, >> language features etc...) is purely version-bound, so I don't even get >> why CMake insists on checking every known function prototype of for >> example "recv"

Folks, It appears the Windows build has regressed over the past week. The build fails quite early (during the "Performing TableGenStep" phase). Any help/pointers would be appreciated. Thanks, snaroff (a clang developer)

On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 10:03 AM, Óscar Fuentes<ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: >>> I think most LLVM users on Windows are interested on X86 only. This >>> saves a lot of time on the build process and creates smaller >>>

Let's go directly to the example struct S { double dummy1; double dummy2; }; S bar(); S foo() { return bar(); } This is the result of g++ -c -S -O2 (focus on the final `ret'): __Z3foov: LFB0: pushl %ebp LCFI0: movl %esp, %ebp LCFI1: pushl %ebx LCFI2: subl $20, %esp LCFI3: movl 8(%ebp), %ebx movl %ebx, (%esp) call __Z3barv pushl %eax movl %ebx, %eax movl -4(%ebp), %ebx