similar to: [LLVMdev] Jumping to a fixed address in Clang

Hi all: Unable to install libvirt v5.5.0 correctly through the source code which clone from git. The error message is shown below. libtool: install: (cd /home/libvirt/src; /bin/sh /home/libvirt/libtool --silent --tag CC --mode=relink gcc -std=gnu99 -I/usr/include/libxml2 -fno-common -W -Waddress -Waggressive-loop-optimizations -Wall -Wattributes -Wbad-function-cast -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined

Hi LLVM-Devs, I have managed to complete updating our sources from LLVM v4.0 to v5.0, but I am getting selection errors for 'callseq_end'. I am aware that the 'ADJCALLSTACKUP' and 'ADJCALLSTACKDOWN' patterns have changed, and have added an additional argument to the TD descriptions for these. There are interactions with 'ISD::CALL' and 'ISD::RET_FLAG',

Hello I apologize in advance for my English. I compiled the new version of libvirt 1.2.8 on an environment Development Linux from Scratch with the following configure: configure: Configuration summary configure: ===================== configure: configure: Drivers configure: configure: Xen: no configure: QEMU: yes configure: UML: yes configure: OpenVZ: no configure: VMware:

Thanks Guido, unfortunately no luck: root@<server>:~/debian# grep DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_ARGS * grep: apparmor: Is a directory grep: patches: Is a directory grep: source: Is a directory root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# root@<server>:~/debian# grep DEB_CONFIGURE_EXTRA_ARGS */* root@<server>:~/debian#

FWIW, attached is a similar patch that adds a -falways-use-llvm-vaarg flag to Clang. Applies against mainline. (As discussed, va_arg isn't really supported well so this probably doesn't work well on anything other than simple code, YMMV, etc) ~Will On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Arushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: > Have these changes made it to mainline? Is

Sergey, Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most likely be deprecated by later changes.) - pdox -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110220/f814866f/attachment.html>

Hi Eli, I have tried this, but the resulting tool-chain was broken. There are only two references to "CALL64m": the definition in X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. After commenting both out, compilation of a large application fails with: llc: ScheduleDAG.cpp:462: void llvm::ScheduleDAGTopologicalSort::InitDAGTopologicalSorting(): Assertion `Node2Index[SU->NodeNum]

ARM subtarget features are determined by parsing the target tuple string TT. (ParseARMTriple(StringRef TT) in ARMMCTargetDesc.cpp) In llc, the -march setting overrides the architecture specified in -mtriple. So when you invoke: $ llc -march arm -mtriple armv7-none-linux ... ParseARMTriple() will see TT == "arm-none-linux" instead of "armv7-none-linux". As a result, the

After removing CALL64m, the resulting DAG has a cycle that cannot be scheduled. I've attached a PDF of the DAG before instruction selection (-view-isel-dags), and after instruction select (-view-sched-dags). Notice how the flag/chain relationships between MOV64rm and CALL64r make it impossible to schedule. Here's the code being compiled: define ccc void @ArgsFree() nounwind { entry:

On Mar 2, 2012, at 12:04 AM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > ARM subtarget features are determined by parsing the target tuple string TT. (ParseARMTriple(StringRef TT) in ARMMCTargetDesc.cpp) > > In llc, the -march setting overrides the architecture specified in -mtriple. So when you invoke: > > $ llc -march arm -mtriple armv7-none-linux ... > >

+ cfe-dev > On Mar 28, 2016, at 1:23 PM, Harlan Haskins via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Recently I’ve noticed in coverage profiles that llvm_unreachable and the like are considered uncovered because there’s no special behavior in instrumentation to ‘ignore’ noreturn paths. FWIW, Daniel Dunbar and a few others have brought up the lack of a

Hi, Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no noreturn attribute, while the function itself does have it. void foo(void **b) { __builtin_longjmp(b, 1); } define void @_Z3fooPPv(i8** %b) noreturn nounwind uwtable { entry: %0 = bitcast i8** %b to i8* tail call void @llvm.eh.sjlj.longjmp(i8* %0)

These patches first make src/ warning free, and then turn on the strict warning options. 75 0001-build-suppress-an-ignored-write-return-value-warning.patch 38 0002-build-suppress-an-ignored-dup-return-value-warning.patch 27 0003-generator.ml-suppress-signed-unsigned-compare-warnin.patch 48 0004-build-don-t-perform-arithmetic-on-void-pointers.patch 30

To get clang to emit va_arg instructions for va_arg() calls, as opposed to manually lowering it in the frontend, same as the llvm-gcc patch sent earlier does. ~Will On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 17, 2011, at 11:53 AM, Will Dietz wrote: > >> FWIW, attached is a similar patch that adds a -falways-use-llvm-vaarg

Dear all, I don't get how llvm handles functions with __attribute__((noreturn)). It seems that LR register is backed up on the stack whilst it will never be used to return from a 'noreturn' function. I have this problem with a home-made backend but it seems that ARM flavour of clang has same behaviour. By the way, SP is also saved, I don't understand why. Is there a syntax error

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 10:03 AM Wei Wang <weiwangcloud2020@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 2:58 PM Ján Tomko <jtomko@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On a Thursday in 2020, Wei Wang wrote: >> >Seems it didn't appear on the mailing list, resent it. >> > >> > Hi folks, >> > >> >I'm trying to build libvirt using meson

You can use CallInst::hasFnAttr(). It checks for attributes in the instruction and in the function decl. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/Instructions_8cpp_source.html#l00345 Nuno ----- Original Message ----- > Hi, > > Building the following C code I get a call instruction that has no > noreturn > attribute, while the function itself does have it. > > void foo(void **b)

Evan & llvmdev, I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example; it is breaking in our stage 2 LLVM build. But here's what I'm seeing in the debug output: # Before ARMLoadStoreOptimizer: BB#21: derived from LLVM BB %cond.end Live Ins: %LR %R0 %R1 %R7 %R10 %R11 Predecessors according to

I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). Evan On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Evan & llvmdev, > > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example;