similar to: [LLVMdev] How the LLVM tools work together

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:41 PM, Stephen Norman <stenorman2001 at me.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been reading through some of the documentation and I'm a little confused. > > What I'm wondering is if someone could explain how the different tools in LLVM (llvmc, clang, llvm-gcc, llvm-ar, etc.) work together to go from the C code I create through to a running

On 28 October 2010 21:41, Stephen Norman <stenorman2001 at me.com> wrote: > What I'm wondering is if someone could explain how the different tools in LLVM (llvmc, clang, llvm-gcc, llvm-ar, etc.) work together to go from the C code I create through to a running executable (after linking). Hi Stephen, This is probably *not* the right list, since this is the developer's list, not

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

Reid, Thank you for your quick reply. Yes, I have built and installed llvm-gcc and "llvm-gcc --print-prog- name=cc1" return the correct path for cc1, so I assume its path is set correctly in the config files, but I haven't installed config files separately. Do I need to do that? Is there any documentation about it? Thank you again, Babak On May 8, 2007, at 7:33 PM, Reid

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

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

Thank you Chris. Actually, I have changed the stack organization in the "llc" source codes for x86 target. Thus, I need libraries compiled with the new stack organization. If I use llvm-gcc (and apparently also llvmc), llc will not be invoked. I was hoping that llvmc would call llvm-gcc to compile to bc file and then call llc to compile to native assembly, but apparently this

Hi, I am trying to compile glibc on Linux using llvm. I need to do this for a research project. The problem is that llvmc doesn't work, and I guess I have to set CC=llvmc to get the glic compiled. For some reason llvmc complains that it cannot find %llvmcc1%. I have this problem both on my Mac and my Linux system. Other tools that I have tested including llvm-gcc work without any

On Tue, 8 May 2007, Babak Salamat wrote: > Yes, I have built and installed llvm-gcc and "llvm-gcc --print-prog- > name=cc1" return the correct path for cc1, so I assume its path is > set correctly in the config files, but I haven't installed config > files separately. Do I need to do that? Is there any documentation > about it? I'd strongly suggest just building

I am convinced to use llvm-gcc. As I mentioned in my previous email, I have changed native code generation in llc to generate code with a different stack organization. In order to have working binaries, the libraries must be compiled with the new tool and have the same stack organization. Now that I cannot use llc, it seems that I have to modify llvm-gcc to have it generate code with the

I am getting this error while using the command "llvmc -O3 -Wall hello.cpp" where hello.cpp is some cpp file on my machine. llvmc is the driver calling a bunch of tools like llvm-g++, opt, llc etc. I think the llvmc tool could not probably locate the llvm-g++ tool. I would like to know where should I specify the path to llvm-g++ for llvmc to find them. Also can someone give me the link

Babak, As its manual page (http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/html/llvmc.html) states, llvmc is an experimental tool: llvmc is considered an experimental LLVM tool because it has these deficiencies: Poor configuration support The support for configuring new languages, etc. is weak. There are many command line configurations that cannot be achieved with the current

Babak, I strongly suggest you drop trying to use llvmc. Instead, probably just compiling your library with llvm-gcc should be sufficient. The llvm-gcc tool has much of llc's functionality built in to it so you're going to get the same output. If that doesn't work for you, then please describe what you're trying to do in more detail and we'll tell you how it can be done.

I'm seeing this new build failure, starting some time yesterday on ARM: make[3]: Entering directory `/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver' llvm[3]: Linking Debug executable llvmc g++ -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_1=Base -DLLVMC_BUILTIN_PLUGIN_2=Clang -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/include -I/home/nlewycky/llvm/tools/llvmc/driver -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -g

On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 13:38 -0700, Babak Salamat wrote: > I am convinced to use llvm-gcc. As I mentioned in my previous email, > I have changed native code generation in llc to generate code with a > different stack organization. In order to have working binaries, the > libraries must be compiled with the new tool and have the same stack > organization. Now that I cannot use

There is actually only one hardware, but with a lot of so called "profiles". For example, there are totally 32 hardware registers available, but the three profiles, namely: * Low register usage profile - use 8 registers at most * Medium register usage profile - use 16 registers at most * High register useage profile - use 32 registers at most I could define a "TablGen target"

I'm debating whether llvm should support the "a.out" convention for the default name of an executable file if no -o option is given to it. I'm currently of the mind that this naming convention is completely outdated and not worth propagating in llvmc. llvmc would require a -o option or you get an error. Your thoughts/ideas? Reid. -------------- next part -------------- A

I''m trying to compile the btrfs source code but I''m getting an error. Any suggestions? Thanks Joe [root@ol6 btrfs-progs]# uname -a Linux ol6.localdomain 2.6.39-400.17.2.el6uek.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Mar 13 12:31:05 PDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux [root@ol6 src]# git clone git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-progs.git Initialized empty Git repository in

Hello, guys. I've tried to use llvmc to test optimization options but wasn't successful. Would you mind telling me what's wrong with this? ------------------------------------------------------------- $ llvmc chc_03.c -O3 -o chc_03 terminate called after throwing an instance of 'std::string' llvmc((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x15)[0x8086091]

Thank you so much for your reply, Chris. If so, can I ask you two things more? First, is there any way to have various optimizations on LLVM assembly such as -O options in llvmc? llvm-gcc doesn't seem to be working for these -O options... Second, I'm still not sure about difference between *.s and *.ll. LLVM assembly *.s file can be made from llvm-gcc -S. Another assembly *.ll file comes