Displaying 20 results from an estimated 8000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Your commit 139841"
2012 Nov 06
2
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] basic reading reloc visitor for x86_64 ELF
For llvm-dwarfdump we need to handle relocations inside the debug info
sections in order to successfully dump the dwarf info including strings.
Nick sent out a partial patch that did this not too long ago and I've taken
it and gone in a bit of a different direction, but kept the same basic
architecture.
In place of applying the relocations to the data we've read from disk I'm
keeping
2008 Aug 21
3
[LLVMdev] Fix build on GCC 4.3
Index: include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
===================================================================
--- include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (revision 55101)
+++ include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (working copy)
@@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
#include <cassert>
#include <iosfwd>
#include <string>
+#include <cstring>
namespace llvm {
class Serializer;
-------------- next part --------------
An
2010 Mar 01
1
[LLVMdev] Clang build problem
Just got clang from head and getting:
ExprConstant.cpp: In function Obool
TryEvaluateBuiltinNaN(clang::ASTContext&, clang::QualType, const
clang::Expr*, bool, llvm::APFloat&)¹:
ExprConstant.cpp:1578: error: no matching function for call to
Ollvm::StringRef::getAsInteger(int, llvm::APInt&)¹
/home/neale/LLVM/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/StringRef.h:269: note: candidates
are: bool
2017 May 27
6
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
Changing a header file somewhere and having to spend 10 minutes waiting for
a build leads to a lot of wasted developer time.
The real culprit here is tablegen. Can we split support and ADT into two -
the parts that tablegen depends on and the parts that it doesn't?
>From what I can gather, Tablegen currently depends on these headers and all
of their transitive dependencies.
#include
2008 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] Fix build on GCC 4.3
Please commit.
On Aug 20, 2008, at 8:02 PM, Zhongxing Xu wrote:
> Index: include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h
> ===================================================================
> --- include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (revision 55101)
> +++ include/llvm/ADT/APInt.h (working copy)
> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@
> #include <cassert>
> #include <iosfwd>
> #include <string>
>
2017 May 27
4
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
It would be better, because a debug tablegen is slower than an optimized
tablegen, but it's still slow and it doesn't address the problem that
tablegen runs *at all* when it doesn't really need to. I think if tablegen
wasn't running all the time we could incremental builds down from 15
minutes (and that's on my really powerful machine) to under 5, which seemed
like a big
2015 Dec 20
2
MSVC warning noise on "LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_ALWAYS_INLINE inline void foo()"
Hi all,
Some functions have "inline" specified twice by use of
LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_ALWAYS_INLINE.
For example in StringRef.h:
LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_ALWAYS_INLINE
inline bool operator==(StringRef LHS, StringRef RHS);
This results in warning noise when compiled with MSVC 2015:
\include\llvm/ADT/StringRef.h(567): warning C4141: 'inline': used more
than once
2017 May 27
3
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
I thought we already did write tablegen output to temporary files like
X86GenAsmWriter1.inc.tmp first and then diffed them with the real .inc file
and conditionally copied.
~Craig
On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 11:02 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 8:06 PM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at
2017 May 27
8
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
It's that TableGen depends on Support, so if you change one file in
support, support gets recompiled into a new static archive, which triggers
a rerun of tablegen on all the tablegen inputs, which is extremely slow.
On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 5:56 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
> On 05/26/2017 07:47 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote:
>
> Changing a header
2017 May 30
3
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
In my experience the buildsystem works fine in combination with tablegen (at least this aspect of it). The real problem here is that tablegen is just slow. Some of the X86 tables take indeed
Last time I looked at it tablegen had still room to optimize the way it resolves class hierarchies and the variables within which it did basically one at a time, so it needed to traverse the hierarchies
2016 Nov 28
3
RFC: Constructing StringRefs at compile time
The fact that the templatized constructor falls down because of the
possibility of initializing StringRef with a stack-allocated char array
kills that idea in my mind.
I feel like the only two reasonable solutions are
1) allow UDL for this case, document that this is an exception and that
UDLs are still not permitted anywhere else, and require (by policy, since I
don't know of a way to have
2019 Jan 04
7
Removing LLVM_ALWAYS_INLINE from ADT classes
Hi,
I would like to propose, based on a previous discussion on llvm-dev,
the following change.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D56337
The main motivation for annotating member functions of ADT clases with
LLVM_ALWAYS_INLINE was that of speeding up `check-llvm` at `-O0`.
Turns out this significantly degrades the debuggability of fundamental
classes in llvm itself, e.g. StringRef or SmallVector.
After
2017 May 30
4
Should we split llvm Support and ADT?
> On May 30, 2017, at 12:05 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> Let me try starting over without mentioning Tablegen :)
Aw, but i had a list of issues, such as:
- tablegen doesn’t generate .d files
- CMake is set up with far reaching deps on .td files, so changing Options.td rebuilds the backends, and adding an ARM intrinsic rebuilds X86 or vice
2012 Sep 09
2
[LLVMdev] : troubles during compiling
Hello everyone!
After I've checked out Clang and Compiler-RT repositories, I receive this
error during compilation:
llvm[5]: Compiling PathDiagnostic.cpp for Debug+Asserts build
/media/data/dev/llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/StaticAnalyzer/Core/PathDiagnostic.cpp:
In member function 'bool {anonymous}::CompareDiagnostics::operator()(const
clang::ento::PathDiagnostic*, const
2013 Jul 25
1
[LLVMdev] First Pass at building dragon egg-3.3 for clang 3.3 - using gcc-4.7
LLVM Friends,
First time attempting a build of dragonegg, using our shiny new install of clang-3.3. I'm clearly off to a terrifying start!
dragonegg-3.3.src$ CXX=/usr/bin/gcc GCC=/usr/bin/gcc ENABLE_LLVM_PLUGINS=1 LLVM_CONFIG=/usr/bin/llvm-config CFLAGS=-I/usr/clang/3.3/lib/clang/3.3/include CXXFLAGS="-I/usr/clang/3.3/lib/clang/3.3/include" make
Compiling
2012 Sep 09
0
[LLVMdev] : troubles during compiling
Hi Vadim, which compiler are you using to to the build, what platform are you
on, how did you configure LLVM, clang etc ?
Ciao, duncan.
On 09/09/12 03:36, Vadim Khoptynets wrote:
> Hello everyone!
>
> After I've checked out Clang and Compiler-RT repositories, I receive this error
> during compilation:
>
> llvm[5]: Compiling PathDiagnostic.cpp for Debug+Asserts build
>
2019 Jan 09
2
Removing LLVM_ALWAYS_INLINE from ADT classes
On Wed, Jan 9, 2019 at 9:38 AM Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2019 at 3:15 PM Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I would like to propose, based on a previous discussion on llvm-dev,
>> the following change.
>> https://reviews.llvm.org/D56337
>>
>> The
2019 Sep 03
2
SourceMgr vs EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
Hi,
I'm trying to build llvm (git monorepo) on Ubuntu 18.04 with
EXPENSIVE_CHECKS enabled and running into various errors compiling
SourceMgr.cpp, depending on which host compiler I use.
For example with GCC:
$ CC=gcc-8 CXX=g++-8 cmake -GNinja -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug
-DLLVM_ENABLE_EXPENSIVE_CHECKS=ON ~/git/llvm-project/llvm/ && ninja
...
[89/2690] Building CXX object
2012 Nov 06
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] basic reading reloc visitor for x86_64 ELF
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote:
> For llvm-dwarfdump we need to handle relocations inside the debug info
> sections in order to successfully dump the dwarf info including strings.
> Nick sent out a partial patch that did this not too long ago and I've taken
> it and gone in a bit of a different direction, but kept the same basic
2019 Sep 03
2
SourceMgr vs EXPENSIVE_CHECKS
Hmm. What about the errors I quoted from using clang-7 (starting about
a third of the way down my email, sorry if they got kinda lost in all
the noise)?
Thanks,
Jay.
On Tue, 3 Sep 2019 at 20:00, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Looks to me like a bug in GCC's constexpr+_GLIBCXX_CONCEPT_CHECKS support. Small test case:
>
> $ g++-8 test.cpp -std=c++2a