similar to: [LLVMdev] Can I use Clang to parse snippets of C++ code?

On Feb 21, 2011, at 6:31 PM, Félix Cloutier wrote: > Hello guys, > > I'd like to use Clang to parse snippets of (and emit bytecode for) C++ code that come from larger files that don't contain only C++, but looking at the clang interpreter example, either I didn't get it, or it looks like the driver expects only files, and not strings or char buffers. > > Is there a

I believe that what I'm trying to do with Clang is fairly simple; the final goal, however, might be a little harder. Knowing myself, there are chances I'll never go through with this project (like Mikael who posted earlier, I'm nothing but an enthusiastic student with lots of time on my hands), but it feels cool enough to me to announce my idea. Besides, I'll probably need help

The semantics of C++ depend heavily on what comes before the given fragment. How do you plan to address this? For example, if you know all the headers you think these snippets will include, you can do something similar to PCH to parse the fragment in context of all of the headers. I don't know much about feeding clang buffers instead of files, but I believe it can be done with some of the

So I got very mixed results. With the CallGraphSCCPass, both `addRequired<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>` and `addRequired<MemoryDependenceAnalysis>` fail at runtime. The LLVM core has just two CallGraphSCCPasses and neither uses neither analyses, so it's hard to find a valid example. I transformed the pass into a ModulePass, using scc_iterator as shown in CGPassManager to process

Hey guys, I'd need to debug just-in-time compiled code under Mac OS. As predicted, GDB doesn't cope really well with it. The LLVM manual seems to say it's possible to patch GDB under Linux, but there seems to be no option for Mac OS. What can I do? I'd prefer a solution that integrates with Xcode, but I'll manage if it doesn't and I have to run the debugger externally.

Thanks Daniel, I'll do a debug build of LLVM (I guess that'll teach me) and step through it as soon as I'll find a power outlet. I'm calling getDependency on the load instruction, and it returns the store instruction. Suspiciously enough, calling invalidateCachedPointerInfo on load->getPointerOperand() does not cause my AA pass to be called again when I use getDependency (or

Hello everyone, I've been watching LLVM since about a year now, and I thought it was finally time I'd do something with it. So I've got my hands dirty with a cool project (who knows? maybe I'll end up releasing it), but since I'm fairly new to the whole thing, there are still a number of things I'm not too sure about. First, the way we create instructions confuses me a

I'm assuming you're looking at this document? http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html That document should probably be updated to say you need GDB 7.0 or newer, since that's when the feature was released. Most Linux distributions have picked this up, so it should Just Work on Linux. Apple's GDB is stale (6.3 + lots of patches). They've stopped updating the version of

Hi all, I have a custom alias analysis pass that enforces that pointers from different address spaces do not alias, and I'm using MemoryDependenceAnalysis to, well, figure out dependence analysis. The AA pass is extremely simple, it only checks the address space of pointers, returns NoAlias if they're different, and delegates otherwise. It is the last alias analysis pass added to my

The title says it all. verifyFunction checks it (Verifier.cpp, line 728). Why can't BasicBlocks that serve as a function's entry point also have predecessors? What keeps a function from looping back to its beginning? Félix -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

2010/6/24 Félix Cloutier <felixcca at yahoo.ca>: > Hello everyone, > > I've been watching LLVM since about a year now, and I thought it was finally time I'd do something with it. So I've got my hands dirty with a cool project (who knows? maybe I'll end up releasing it), but since I'm fairly new to the whole thing, there are still a number of things I'm not

Hello Félix- Consider the following snippet of IR: define i32 @foo(i32 %n) nounwind { entry: br label %loop loop: %loop.n = phi i32 [0, %entry], [%tmp, %loop] call void @bar() nounwind %tmp = sub nsw i32 %loop.n, 1 %cmp = icmp eq i32 %tmp, 0 br i1 %cmp, label %exit, label %loop exit: ret i32 0 } declare void @bar() nounwind Try to merge the blocks "entry" and "loop"

Thanks John. Does this solve the problem of analysis availability though? If I still have to run the function analyses manually, I might as well keep rolling with the CallGraphSCCPass. (I probably should have mentioned that this is what I’m using right now.) Félix > Le 2015-05-19 à 10:12:32, John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> a écrit : > > On 5/18/15 10:45 PM, Félix Cloutier

Wouldn't it mean each time a function is compiled it would need to be bundled to its own dylib? How well would that scale? Félix Le 2010-07-07 à 15:41:18, Reid Kleckner a écrit : > On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >>> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? >> >> Are you running JIT'd code within another

Hi, I've been porting a project to LLVM 3.9 and found that the SCCP pass may remove calls to external functions if their return type is declared to be an empty struct. For instance: > %empty = type {} > > declare %empty @foo() > > define i32 @main() { > %1 = call %empty @foo() > ret i32 0 > } opt -sccp -S file.ll returns: > %empty = type {} > >

Hi Félix, Sanjoy Das wrote: > Félix Cloutier via llvm-dev wrote: > > Assuming that this is a bug, what are the next steps? > > Looks like you already have a very small test case -- have you tried > sticking it in a debugger to see why SCCP thinks removing the call is > okay? > > Alternatively, file a bug at llvm.org/bugs and someone will get to it. The third

On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 9:08 AM, Greg Clayton <gclayton at apple.com> wrote: >> 2) Can I easily debug JIT'd code with LLDB? > > Are you running JIT'd code within another process that can be debugged (i.e. the simulation binary)? If so, you might want to have LLVM generate a full blown dylib, not just a JIT'd chunk of code and load the dylib using the standard shared

Hello LLVMdev, I’m using LLVM to do static analysis exclusively (without any code generation). To implement this analysis, I’m using multiple address spaces to disambiguate the purpose of the pointed memory. Since address spaces never alias in my model, I set on to implement an alias analysis pass that would exactly provide this information, as I’m seeing a couple of otherwise dead store that

Hey guys, Whys are there like 5 variants of CreateCall in IRBuilder<> with numbers appended to them? The only difference I can see is the number of arguments. Aren't C++ function overloads be suited for this? Félix

Hi all, I have one analysis pass that I want to perform on call graph SCCs. However, for each function in the SCC, I need function-level analyses, like the dominator tree and the memory dependency analysis. I’ve been told before <http://stackoverflow.com/questions/30059622/using-dominatortreewrapperpass-in-callgraphsccpass> that these were not available from a CallGraphSCCPass. What would