similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm.compiler.provides?

Hi Gregory, I had a similar problem a while back, see: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-June/032508.html for my solution to this problem. Basically I ended up linking in the *.o files needed to get exactly what I needed (in your case, the file defining CloneModule and whatever else you need), without pulling in too much (causing duplicate symbol issues with opt). Hopefully this

I thought it would, but it seems to be missing the CloneModule symbol (which isn't called from anywhere in the LLVM codebase). On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 7:43 AM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I > can load into opt

On 7/14/11 7:36 PM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so > that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's > what I have right now: Have you tried removing LINK_COMPONENTS below? I suspect that the opt binary already contains everying in the transformUtils library. -- John T. > >

Hello, I have a question about how to set up a Makefile that generate a .so that I can load into opt without getting duplicate symbols. Here's what I have right now: LIBRARYNAME=previrt SHARED_LIBRARY=previrt LINK_COMPONENTS := transformUtils LINK_LIBS_IN_SHARED=1 include $(LEVEL)/Makefile.common LIBS += -lprotobuf CPPFLAGS += -I${HOME}/.root/usr/include -DGOOGLE_PROTOBUF_NO_RTTI LDFLAGS

For my application it is important that I get bit code out the other end and I couldn't get the linux linker to link llvm. Is there a way to do this with other tools? I noticed a TODO in the llvm-link.cpp file that said that this should be done so I figured that that would be the right place to do it. 2011/7/30 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > On

Hello, I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has some problems with append linkage, but so far it has been enough for me. I'd like to

Hi Duncan, Ah, non-unicode email... In the llvm output there should be a "1" character, i.e. (char) 0x01, prepended to acos and __GI_acos. I'm unable to get it on smaller things, but it happens when I try to compile uClibc with llvm. I've attached the .o and the .bc for comparison. The text file is the result after preprocessing (to avoid having to download a bunch of stuff).

Hello, Another question about the more esoteric parts of C. Is there any way to get dragonegg to handle c function aliases or is there a way to get around this? For example, I've got a simple file: int foo(int x) { return x; } extern typeof(foo) foo2 __attribute((alias("foo"))); Compiling with vanilla gcc I end up with two symbols: foo and foo2 which both refer to the same

Hello, I'm looking at compiling some pieces of the standard library with llvm but I'm running into problems with some functions being renamed by dragonegg. For example, when I compile the acos implementation with plain gcc I get: $ nm acos.o 0000000000000000 r .LC1 0000000000000048 r .LC10 0000000000000050 r .LC11 0000000000000058 r .LC12 0000000000000060 r .LC13 0000000000000068 r .LC14

(cc'ing llvm-dev) Hello Gregory, i just recompiled llvm from scratch, and was able to build the ocaml kaleidoscope bindings. Did you know the llvm's build system already can compile the kaleidoscope tutorials for you? You can run this to build them: make BUILD_EXAMPLES=1 Or just cd into the examples directory in your build directory, and run "make" there. Anyway, I think the

On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Gregory Malecha <gmalecha at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello, Hello Gregory, > I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and > it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. > Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of > instruction, but there doesn't seem

Hello, I'm wondering if anyone had any success (even a small amount) compiling any variant of libc to llvm bitcode? -- gregory malecha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110622/b5fad437/attachment.html>

On 2011-07-29 16:16, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working on a project that involves archive files and since llvm-link > does not currently support them, I have a simple patch (attached) to add > this functionality. It isn't really efficient (it recomputes the set of > symbols that need to be linked in after each link), and it probably has > some problems

Hi Xi, How did you compile it with clang? I ran into problems: clang -emit-llvm -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"newlib\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"newlib\ 1.19.0\" -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DPACKAGE_URL=\"\" -I. -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -DMISSING_SYSCALL_NAMES -fno-builtin -O2 -c -o

Hello, I'm interested in the OCaml bindings, but I've been digging through them and it doesn't seem possible to actually write a transformation with them. Specifically, there are a lot of functions to build each type of instruction, but there doesn't seem to be any way to query an llvalue and determine what kind of instruction it is. Is there something that I am missing? Thank

Hi Duncan, On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Gregory, > > > I've tried the LTO options with dragonegg, but I haven't had any luck > getting it > > to work, > > details? > I think this is a misunderstanding on my part about what the dragonegg plugin is supposed to do. I am looking for something that will

I would recommend Newlib. It's easy to configure and compile using Clang. http://sourceware.org/newlib/ - xi On Jun 23, 2011, at 2:07 AM, Gregory Malecha wrote: > Hello, > > I'm wondering if anyone had any success (even a small amount) compiling any variant of libc to llvm bitcode? > > -- > gregory malecha > _______________________________________________ >

I''m having all sorts of trouble getting our new puppet-dashboard install to connect/get the facts/inventory from the puppet master. These are separate boxes, and I''m getting (testing): root@puppetdash puppet-dashboard]# curl -k -H "Accept: yaml" https://puppet:8140/production/facts/hero0304.rc.fas.harvard.edu Forbidden request:

Hi Gregory, > I've tried the LTO options with dragonegg, but I haven't had any luck getting it > to work, details? Ciao, Duncan. I'm not sure if it is related to my installation of gold or my gcc > configuration. > > I'm really interested in getting the resulting program as bitcode though. Will > LTO do that for me? What I'm trying to do is build a

Hi Gregory, > Ah, non-unicode email... In the llvm output there should be a "1" character, > i.e. (char) 0x01, prepended to acos and __GI_acos. I'm unable to get it on > smaller things, but it happens when I try to compile uClibc with llvm. I've > attached the .o and the .bc for comparison. The text file is the result after > preprocessing (to avoid having to