similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Makefile options

Does a transform exist to breakdown the GEP? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111206/e88dddfe/attachment.html>

Do you think I could use the SelectionDAGBuilder in a pass to accomplish this for me? if there is already code that does this I don't really think I should have to do this again, unless it's not possible to access that code from the stage where I want to use it? On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 12:56 AM, Pedro Ferreira <pedro.ferreira at imgtec.com>wrote: > I was unaware of its removal.

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:13 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GetElementPtr To: Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> There is no support for gep, it's my understanding that it's target-independent, so there's no reason to put the lowering in the target lowering portion is there?

Or is it in the docs such that when you use the word "independent", you really mean "independent of a particular target" and not actually "target independent"? On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:18 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> > Date: Thu,

On Fri, 2010-09-17 at 12:16 +0100, David Given wrote: > On 17/09/10 09:55, Pedro Ferreira wrote: > > As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors > > that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, > > similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with > > GC's is that they need to be provided

On 17/09/10 09:55, Pedro Ferreira wrote: > As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors > that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, > similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with > GC's is that they need to be provided info about the stack, thats where > LLVM's support comes in. Are there

On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > There is a GEPSplitterPass in the Scalar.h but not in the > LLVM_SRC/lib/Transforms/Scalar folder, there is no GEPSplitterPass.cpp > file. Is it possible to get this from 2.8 and compile it and use it for 2.9? > > > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote:

I dont know if this is the wright mailing list but here it goes I wanted to use wine so that i can avoid purchasing 70 XP licences I installed a software that talks with the informix client 2.7.0 everything was running fine, the instalation went with minor problems. Until now when i stated a connection to the informix server wine simply stops the comand

Hello, I am trying to write a LLVM backend for a school project using only custom code (as with the CBackend) and I'm having difficulties handling the PHI nodes from LLVM asm code. Is there any pass we can do before my custom Module Pass to remove the PHI nodes?

Pedro Ferreira wrote: > Hello, > > I am trying to write a LLVM backend for a school project using only > custom code (as with the CBackend) and I'm having difficulties > handling the PHI nodes from LLVM asm code. Is there any pass we can do > before my custom Module Pass to remove the PHI nodes? Try the Reg2Mem pass. http://llvm.org/docs/Passes.html#reg2mem Nick

Nick Lewycky <nicholas <at> mxc.ca> writes: > > Pedro Ferreira wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I am trying to write a LLVM backend for a school project using only > > custom code (as with the CBackend) and I'm having difficulties > > handling the PHI nodes from LLVM asm code. Is there any pass we can do > > before my custom Module Pass to

I configure LLVM build with this command cd llvm-8.0.0.src & md buildsys-x64-MT & cd buildsys-x64-MT & cmake -G "Ninja" -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86 -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Release -DLLVM_USE_CRT_RELEASE=MT -DLLVM_ENABLE_RTTI=1 -DLLVM_ENABLE_TERMINFO=OFF -DCMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX=../x64-MT .. The number of build objects grew with every major release to 1660 for LLVM 7 and 1761 for

As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with GC's is that they need to be provided info about the stack, thats where LLVM's support comes in. As far as I know, the garbage collector is linked into the final binary

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.

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 Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Francois, > >> In that case, RTTI and exception should also be disabled from CMake >> generated projects right? >> Currently they are enabled all over my MSVC projects. > > I'm not sure what you are asking.  The goal is for LLVM to not require > RTTI or exception handling.

Hi, I'd like to build llvm with assertions enabled, but build clang with assertions disabled. In other words, I'd like lvm in Release+Asserts mode, but clang in Release mode. Is it possible to do this with one top level configure/make command? If not, any idea how much work would it be to add this feature to llvm? I'm not very familiar with llvm's build system. Thanks!

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:53 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > I don't think that Clang/LLVM uses it by default on x86_64. If you're using -Ofast, however, that would explain it. I recommend looking at -O3 vs -O0 and make sure those are the same. -Ofast enables -ffast-math, which can legitimately cause differences. > The following tests pass at "-O3" and

"David Peixotto" <dpeixott at codeaurora.org> writes: > I'd like to build llvm with assertions enabled, but build clang with > assertions disabled. In other words, I'd like lvm in Release+Asserts mode, > but clang in Release mode. > > Is it possible to do this with one top level configure/make command? If not, > any idea how much work would it be to add