similar to: [LLVMdev] Programmatic compilation of C++ file into bitcode

Hi Trevor, > I'm building a static analysis tool on top of LLVM. It needs to take > in a C++ source file and have LLVM translate it into bitcode. In other > words, it basically needs to do this: > > llvmc hello.cpp -emit-llvm -O0 -S -g behind the scenes it's actually llvm-gcc that is generating the bitcode. > Except that instead of writing the bitcode to a file, it

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > sys::Program::ExecuteAndWait() requires that the first element in "args" > should be the name of the program, but (at least) llvm-ld.cpp and gccld.cpp > fail to do so, thereby effectively swallowing the first parameter. > This is the reason that -native-cbe has not working for some time - actually > I wonder why no

Folks, As of the writing of this note, the llvmc tool is enabled for build on the CVS head. I'm encouraging you to try it out, provide some feedback, and help with the issues below. llvmc is now able to correctly link a pure bytecode version of any Stacker program. This includes translation with stkrc, optimization with opt and linking with llvm-link. It is also able to find Stacker's

[Chris asked me to bring this up on the mailing list some time ago, but I couldn't get to it. Sorry for that.] Since the beginning, I used ReST [1] for documenting llvmc, instead of plain HTML that was used historically. In my opinion, ReST is much easier to write and read (in the text editor or on terminal); it can also be used to produce PDFs, man pages or HTML that looks exactly the same

WikiFormatting for code documentation? :-) -scooter On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov <foldr at codedgers.com>wrote: > [Chris asked me to bring this up on the mailing list some time > ago, but I couldn't get to it. Sorry for that.] > > Since the beginning, I used ReST [1] for documenting llvmc, instead of > plain HTML that was used historically. In my

Hi, I am trying to build my own llvmc plugin, but somehow, the llvm makefiles do not pick up the plugin in the llvmc/plugins directory anymore in a recent (r129445) svn checkout. According to the tutorial (http://llvm.org/docs/CompilerDriverTutorial.html): $ cd tools/llvmc $ cp -r example/Simple plugins/Simple $ make LLVMC_BASED_DRIVER_NAME=mygcc LLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGINS=Simple does not build

Can you compare ReST to docbook? We've talked about using docbook for a long time. What are the pros and cons of each? Thanks, Tanya On Dec 9, 2008, at 7:56 AM, Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > [Chris asked me to bring this up on the mailing list some time > ago, but I couldn't get to it. Sorry for that.] > > Since the beginning, I used ReST [1] for documenting llvmc, instead

On Feb 25, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > Is there perhaps some structured mechanism for retrieving the output > of an LLVM pass? That is, something better than just parsing the > output of "opt"... On rereading the opt documentation, I see: "In a few cases, it will ... generate a file with the analysis output, which is usually done when the output is meant

On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > I'm not sure how the other program can find the output, unless > of course the analyzer simply dumps the file to a hard-coded > location (/tmp?). Replying to myself again... After sifting through many of the existing transforms, I discovered that new command-line parameters can be added to opt simply by declaring them in the

On Thursday 25 February 2010 17:30:24 Trevor Harmon wrote: > On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:28 PM, Trevor Harmon wrote: > > I'm not sure how the other program can find the output, unless > > of course the analyzer simply dumps the file to a hard-coded > > location (/tmp?). > > Replying to myself again... > > After sifting through many of the existing transforms, I

Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > 2009/6/23 <Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com> > >>> BTW, Chris's Makefile changes broke llvmc yesterday (r75379). I'm >>> working on a fix. >>> >> Hi Mikhail, >> Did you get a chance to fix this. I still get errors while building examples. >> >> > > This issue

On Feb 25, 2010, at 1:04 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > You can add your static analysis to llvm-gcc as an LLVM pass. > If you write it as an LLVM pass then you can also use it from > "opt", which would be convenient. Thanks, that sounds like a good approach. It appears I can get a Module instance simply by inheriting from ModulePass. There's one problem, however. I will at

Here is the bulk of the sanitizing. My residual doubts center around the question whether we still do/want to support (un)compressed *byte*code in 2.0/2.1. I need a definitive word on this to proceed. My understanding is that bytecode is already gone, but there are still some functions/enums that really deal with *byte*code (instead of *bit*code). I did not touch those areas, so the attached

On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 17:49 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote: > I've compiled all the object files that make up libstdc++ and libsupc++ > into LLVM bytecode: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/libstdcxx.tar.bz2 (438KB) > > A simple test program, x.cpp: > > #include <iostream> > int main() { std::cout << "hello world\n"; return 0; } > > $

On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 17:49 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote: > I've compiled all the object files that make up libstdc++ and libsupc++ > into LLVM bytecode: > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/libstdcxx.tar.bz2 (438KB) > > A simple test program, x.cpp: > > #include <iostream> > int main() { std::cout << "hello world\n"; return 0; } > > $

I've compiled all the object files that make up libstdc++ and libsupc++ into LLVM bytecode: http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/libstdcxx.tar.bz2 (438KB) A simple test program, x.cpp: #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << "hello world\n"; return 0; } $ llvm-g++ -emit-llvm -c x.cpp $ llvmc -o=out x.o std/*.o sup/*.o $ lli out.bc Segmentation fault (core

On Mon, Nov 20, 2006 at 08:01:23AM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 17:49 +1100, Emil Mikulic wrote: > > I've compiled all the object files that make up libstdc++ and libsupc++ > > into LLVM bytecode: > > http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/libstdcxx.tar.bz2 (438KB) > > > > A simple test program, x.cpp: > > > > #include

On Aug 24, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Holger Schurig wrote: > Is llvmc meant for compilation? > I'm not sure what the status of llvmc is (is anyone working on it?), but I don't believe it was ready for real use or was finished. If you would like to work on it, patches are welcomed! Thanks, Tanya > $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o > /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c:55: Error: Expecting output

Is llvmc meant for compilation? $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c:55: Error: Expecting output type value /usr/src/llvm/dist/etc/llvm/c had 1 errors. Terminating. The offending line contains: optimizer.output = bytecode which doesn't seem to be understood by llvmc. If I uncomment this line, I get another error message: $ llvmc -c a.c -o a.o llvmc: Can't find program

To answer my own question. The problem is that Solaris ships with very old tools, and llvmc was generating assembler that worked with a fresh (gcc-4.5) compile & install. I had them handy, just further down the path. Hopefully anyone with the same problem can find this in the archive. Thanks everyone. On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Lally Singh <lally.singh at gmail.com> wrote: