similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] problems building shared libraries with cmake

Now that autoconf is going away soon, I figured I'd try building using CMake. I checked out llvm, cfe and lldb from the SVN server, and followed the basic build instructions. cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=/tools/llvm/svn_head -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86;CppBackend" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_ENABLE_ASSERTIONS=ON ../llvm Everything worked well, and in

Thanks - I'll try this tonight. Assuming it works, should these variables be added to the docs at http://llvm.org/docs/CMake.html ? On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:26 PM, Andrew Wilkins <axwalk at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, 14 Jan 2016 at 11:02 David Jones via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Now that autoconf is going away soon, I

Hello, I'm facing some problems while building LLVM 2.8 shared libraries from source using CMake: cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=true .. This is the output error: CMake Error: The inter-target dependency graph contains the following strongly connected component (cycle): "LLVMARMCodeGen" of type SHARED_LIBRARY depends on "LLVMARMAsmPrinter"

mg <mariusz.grad at googlemail.com> writes: > Is it possible to generate pass (shared object) from Cmake? ? Please name the library or libraries you want to build as shared objects. > I tried to use add_llvm_library() however it produces only static > libs. As mentioned on http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html : cmake -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON path/to/llvm/source This builds all

nobled <nobled at dreamwidth.org> writes: >>> The LLVM 2.7 release notes say you can use ./configure --enable-shared >>> to build LLVM as a shared library (libLLVM2.7.so), and the LLVM tools >>> will link against that instead of including the static libraries, so I >>> was wondering: >>> >>> Is there a way to configure LLVM the same way

Hi, Is it possible to generate pass (shared object) from Cmake? I tried to use add_llvm_library() however it produces only static libs. Thanks, Mariusz.

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM,

On 8 January 2015 at 19:46, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> How do you feel about adding LLD to the LLVM repo? Could it follow >> the same path as the integrated assembler? That is, Clang keeps it >> off by default for each architecture until

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 9, 2016, at 4:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 11:45 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 4:26 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:38 PM, Peter

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:10 PM, David

Hello, I am encountering a linking failure when using Control Flow Integrity while building a shared library. It looks like the wrong relocation type is being emitted for functions referenced via the PLT. I am using clang 3.9. The error message I get is: /usr/bin/ld.gold: error: /tmp/lto-llvm-df723d.o: requires dynamic R_X86_64_PC32 reloc against 'free' which may overflow at runtime;

2009/9/15 Patrick Simmons <simmon12 at illinois.edu>: > cmake -G "Eclipse CDT4 - Unix Makefiles" -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE="Debug" > -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD="X86;PowerPC;CBackend" > /home/renato/llvm-sources Thanks Patrick, I'll give it a try. At least now I know that it can be done. My previous attempts all ended up in memory

> On 2014 Dec 5, at 10:53, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 09:35:22AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >> >>> On 2014-Dec-05, at 00:39, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 06:44:36PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote: >>>> As of

On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 1:25 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 12:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: >> >> Hi,

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > The specific change I have in mind is to allow !range metadata on GlobalObjects. This would > be similar to existing !range metadata, but it would apply to the

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I think that the approach of using a section to record address > significance is a good one. I'm guessing it will have its own section > type and format? If it does would it make sense to try and submit this > to the GABI https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/generic-abi as

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 12:16 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 3:25 AM, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I think that the approach of using a section to record address >> significance is a good one. I'm guessing it will have its own section >> type and format? If

On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> We've been considering changing the naming scheme for promoted local >> functions in ThinLTO. Currently we just prepend the file name, but that >>

On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 2:09 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 6, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < >> dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> > On