similar to: [LLVMdev] Disabling rtti on default build - could it be reverted/re-enabled?

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

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

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

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

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

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 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 \

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 LoopPass's typeinfo. undefined symbol: _ZTIN4llvm8LoopPassE $ c++filt _ZTIN4llvm8LoopPassE

Pekka Jääskeläinen 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 highly recommend that any packagers turn on RTTI for their shipping builds of LLVM, in order to increase the chance of the library being reusable. Nick

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

On 02/19/2010 12:54 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > IMO, if you wish to preserve the ability to ever turn off RTTI, you > must turn it off by default for the developers' builds so that any > code which might depend on RTTI breaks immediately. Otherwise, it > seems only a matter of time before dependencies slowly creep back into > the code base. This has certainly proven true with

Pekka Jääskeläinen wrote: > Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> I've put together http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html to document >> these kinds of requests for all packagers in one place. Let me know if >> any of the advice I've put there is wrong. (At the moment, > > Looks good to me. BTW exception support for LLVM is not required > to link with code that uses

Our architecture(TCE) can have LOTS of registers. It seems r152019 changed some register bookkeeping data structures to 8-bit. This broke support for architectures with >255 registers. Please revert this change or make those register-related values at least 16 bits wide.

On 02/19/2010 07:55 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I highly recommend that any packagers turn on RTTI for their shipping > builds of LLVM, in order to increase the chance of the library being > reusable. Seems Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is going to ship LLVM 2.7. I sent a request for enabling RTTI on the package, I hope it's not too late for that:

On Mar 5, 2012, at 5:39 AM, Heikki Kultala wrote: > Our architecture(TCE) can have LOTS of registers. > > It seems r152019 changed some register bookkeeping data structures to > 8-bit. This broke support for architectures with >255 registers. > > Please revert this change or make those register-related values at least > 16 bits wide. I agree. We can limit the number

Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > I've put together http://llvm.org/docs/Packaging.html to document > these kinds of requests for all packagers in one place. Let me know if > any of the advice I've put there is wrong. (At the moment, Looks good to me. BTW exception support for LLVM is not required to link with code that uses exceptions. At least our toolset seems to link fine with LLVM

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 5:37 AM, Pekka Jääskeläinen <pekka.jaaskelainen at tut.fi> wrote: > On 02/19/2010 07:55 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> I highly recommend that any packagers turn on RTTI for their shipping >> builds of LLVM, in order to increase the chance of the library being >> reusable. > > Seems Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is going to ship LLVM 2.7. I sent a request

I'm having some troubles implementing vector support to our custom backend It seems that llvm cannot emulate shuffle with extracts, inserts and builds? I've enabled vector registers with addRegisterClass(MVT::v2i32, TCE::V2I32RegsRegisterClass); addRegisterClass(MVT::v2f32, TCE::V2F32RegsRegisterClass); and created patterns for most vector instructions, including insert, extract and