similar to: [LLVMdev] RTTI Madness

On Jan 28, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > Hi, > Lately LLVM has been adding -fno-rtti to most of the compiler. I > have a pass which uses LoopPass and which inherits from FunctionPass > and a class of my own. If I compile my code with ENABLE_RTTI=1, I > can't dynamically load the shared object since it won't be able to > find the symbol for

On 01/29/2010 12:11 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 28, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Thomas B. Jablin wrote: > > >> Hi, >> Lately LLVM has been adding -fno-rtti to most of the compiler. I >> have a pass which uses LoopPass and which inherits from FunctionPass >> and a class of my own. If I compile my code with ENABLE_RTTI=1, I >> can't dynamically load

Hi @llvm, I've already asked the following questions to the clang dev list but got no response. Maybe there is a wider audience at llvmdev and someone here can help me. The question actually boils down to: How can I compile clang with rtti enabled? And this was my original mail (with some points now better explained) to clang: <--BEGIN--> Hi @clang, I'm somewhat puzzled about

Hi Olaf, On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 5:24 AM, Olaf Krzikalla <Olaf.Krzikalla at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > Hi @clang, > > I'm somewhat puzzled about using rtti when building clang under gcc (gcc > 4.3.3, linux/ubuntu). > (There is no problem under MSVC since rtti seems to be active there anyway). > The appropriate line 348 in llvm/makefile.rules is commented out meaning >

Hi Edvard, _ZTIN4llvm8LoopPassE is "typeinfo for llvm::LoopPass". LLVM is built without typeinfo, so you will need to build your pass with -fno-rtti. Ciao, Duncan. > I'm trying to implement LoopPass. > Here is simple code : > > class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass > { > public: > static char ID; > > public: > virtual

Hello . I'm trying to implement LoopPass. Here is simple code :    class LoopParser: public llvm::LoopPass   {     public:       static char ID;     public:       virtual void getAnalysisUsage(llvm::AnalysisUsage &AU) const       {         AU.addRequiredID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addPreservedID(llvm::LoopSimplifyID);         AU.addRequired<llvm::LoopInfo>();       }    

Hi all, I'm having problems compiling LLVM 3.2 with RTTI enabled. Since my code makes heavy use of the Boost libraries, RTTI is a must. This is the script I use to compile (as root): SRC_ROOT=$PWD OBJ_ROOT=/export/apps/llvm INSTALL_ROOT=/usr/local mkdir -p $OBJ_ROOT cd $OBJ_ROOT $SRC_ROOT/configure --prefix=$INSTALL_ROOT \

We at Tampere University of technology are using LLVM for high-level optimizations in the compiler for our TTA processor toolkit(TCE) We have a llvm backend which creates our own intermediate code, and our own instruction selector after that (as LLVM's machine code cannot represent the actual machine codes of our processors). This makes our llvm backend quite different from the ordinary

On Feb 17, 2010, at 3:15 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > LLVM 2.7 is dropping rtti on default build, which is a problem to us. > We are using Boost libraries on many places in our code, and Boost has > some heavy usage of type info tricks, which cannot be compiled without > rtti, so we have to keep rtti on for our code. > > But our code also implements the llvm backend framework

Hello . I would like to add new custom data type to llvm C parser, I use LLVM/Clang version 3.1. Adding new type instructions from llvm.org site are out of date (http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html#type). Could you please provide me with guidance? Thanks in advance, Edvard  -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On 02/17/2010 09:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > You should be able to get this by doing "make REQUIRES_RTTI=1" when building LLVM. What is the main reason RTTI is now disabled by default? We discussed this briefly in IRC but could not reach a proper conclusion and I was directed to ask here for the proper reason against it. Having RTTI support in should not have execution speed

Hi, I've written a CallGraphSCCPass that compiles successfully, but when I try to run it with opt, it fails: Symbol not found: __ZTIN4llvm16CallGraphSCCPassE If I simply change the pass to be a FunctionPass or a ModulePass, opt can run it just fine. I'm on Mac OS X, so I thought perhaps I was running into bug #2771 [1], but I'm getting the same error on Ubuntu Linux:

Hi Trevor, > I've written a CallGraphSCCPass that compiles successfully, but when I > try to run it with opt, it fails: > > Symbol not found: __ZTIN4llvm16CallGraphSCCPassE $ c++filt _ZTIN4llvm16CallGraphSCCPassE typeinfo for llvm::CallGraphSCCPass LLVM TOT has RTTI turned off as far as I know (not sure about 2.7). Are you making use of RTTI? Ciao, Duncan.

On Sep 30, 2011, at 3:04 PM, Somorjai, Akos wrote: > Thanks! Yes, we are trying to avoid that situation as much as possible. > > Is there any compiler/linker/static analyzer option that would point out those problems (in 13 million lines, large part of that being legacy code)? There's a -Wweak-vtables which will point out a lot of these cases. I have to warn you that in previous

Thanks, John. I'll experiment with both the warning and the nm-weak external tool, and let you know the results. Best, Akos From: John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com<mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2011 15:24:33 -0700 To: Ákos Somorjai <asomorjai at graphisoft.com<mailto:asomorjai at graphisoft.com>> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:llvmdev

Thanks! Yes, we are trying to avoid that situation as much as possible. Is there any compiler/linker/static analyzer option that would point out those problems (in 13 million lines, large part of that being legacy code)? Currently I don't know any better way than runtime logging and asserting. Also, what shall we do we external source libraries (like Teigha from Open Design Alliance), where

I've actually tried to compile both LLVM and my lib with -frtti with same results. On Dec 10, 2012, at 21:57, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Llvm typically doesn't build with RTTI enabled. Perhaps that's what you're running into? > > Jim -- Vladimir Pouzanov http://www.farcaller.net/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment

On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 3:42 PM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: >  From now on these users need to recompile LLVM from sources with non-default > flags to make TCE (or other external projects using both LLVM and RTTI) to > be able to link with it. I think this should matter something in comparison to > a 5% disk size reduction which can be still achieved

On Feb 18, 2010, at 1:54 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > On 02/17/2010 09:58 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> You should be able to get this by doing "make REQUIRES_RTTI=1" when building LLVM. > > What is the main reason RTTI is now disabled by default? We discussed > this briefly in IRC but could not reach a proper conclusion and I was > directed to ask here for the

Chris Lattner wrote: >> Mainly this is about a nuisance to need to ask users of TCE to recompile >> LLVM (which might be even installed from a precompiled binary for their >> distro) to be able to compile TCE. > > I'm dubious that doing that would actually work anyway. Since LLVM doesn't > provide a stable API, being able to reuse a previously installed