similar to: [LLVMdev] Is there a separate linker for LLVM in Windows?

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Thomson <lilotom at gmail.com> wrote: > I just found that some samples used link.exe from Visual Studio to generate > the final image, does LLVM has a replacement for link.exe to generate the > final binary? > > -- > Thanks > Thomson Not currently, but a linker is being worked on. Is there any reason why link.exe is undesirable? You can

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:26 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:38 AM, Thomson <lilotom at gmail.com> wrote: >> I just found that some samples used link.exe from Visual Studio to generate >> the final image, does LLVM has a replacement for link.exe to generate the >> final binary? I'm not related to the topic

Could generated assembly with option "-x86-asm-symtab=intel" be assembled by nasm directly? On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > If by "NASM format" you mean Intel syntax, then yes. In my experience most > LLVM tools refer to it with the option "-x86-asm-syntax=intel". For > example, tools/llvm-objdump has this

I saw many definitions derived from Instruction defines OutputOperandList and InputOperandList (usually in the xxxInstrFormats.td), but I don't see where they are referenced. Anything I missed here? Thanks, -Thomson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140112/e6e87e9f/attachment.html>

I saw some LLVM generated assembly in NASM format, but did find this support in the official release. Is this supported? -- Thanks Thomson Tan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120621/c571b488/attachment.html>

I saw there is reference to dead def on registers in LLVM source code. I am not aware of this concept from the traditional course material. What are the properties of dead def? Cheers Thomson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150101/ea39d1e4/attachment.html>

The blow snippet in target.td shows the regList in RegisterClass is typed as dag. Why not make it a simple list, such as list<Register>? class RegisterClass<string namespace, list<ValueType> regTypes, int alignment, dag regList> Thanks, -Thomson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

To generate code for a target which doesn't have immediate constant as instruction operand, do I (the target specific back-end, XXXTarget) need to provide code to break up the SDNode with constant (like ISD::ADD $reg1, #1) to 2 SDNodes (ISD::LOAD $reg2, #1; ISD::ADD $reg1, $reg2) in my XXXTargetLowering::LowerOperation, or LLVM target-independent framework can do such transformation

I found that LLVM optimized the IR by replacing printf with puts. I wondered which pass did this optimization? And is it common that puts is faster (and some other metric) than printf? -- Thanks Thomson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120617/08aa6c45/attachment.html>

If by "NASM format" you mean Intel syntax, then yes. In my experience most LLVM tools refer to it with the option "-x86-asm-syntax=intel". For example, tools/llvm-objdump has this flag. --Sean Silva On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Thomson <lilotom at gmail.com> wrote: > I saw some LLVM generated assembly in NASM format, but did find this > support in the

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Ivan Krasin <krasin at google.com> wrote: > I'm not related to the topic starter, but I see at least one huge > disadvantage of the dependency on link.exe. > W/o such a dependency it would be possible reliably generate Windows > executables on Linux or Mac, which has its own benefits (e.g. > distributed compilation) GRUB, the Grand Unified

I tried to build an LLVM pass in visual studio with cmake, but it seems add_LLVM_loadable_module macro doesn't support non-unix and non-cygwin platform. Is loadable module necessary for LLVM pass? Could I just build a static library and pass it to opt? If static library is not supported, is there any way to build an LLVM pass through visual studio? Or through clang with cmake? -- Thanks

Don Quixote de la Mancha <quixote at dulcineatech.com> writes: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Ivan Krasin <krasin at google.com> wrote: >> I'm not related to the topic starter, but I see at least one huge >> disadvantage of the dependency on link.exe. >> W/o such a dependency it would be possible reliably generate Windows >> executables on Linux or

Hi llvm team! I'm currently working on the extended version of llvm-ld, which has an ability to check if all the symbols present (and fail if some symbols are not resolved), treat archives in the right way (link all the object files in the archive if it's specified as the regular input, not as -l) and the most important to my project feature: to link against bitcode "shared

On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:27 PM, Rafael Ávila de Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > > $ llc bar.bc -filetype=obj -o bar.o > > $ clang -shared -o bar.so bar.o > > $ clang -use-gold-plugin foo.o bar.so -o t > > > > Is that correct? In particular, "lld t" should show a dependency on > bar. > > Any

Am 13.06.2020 um 22:56 schrieb Antony Stone: Hi Antony, > I would like to see a much simpler one-for-one comparison: only change one > thing at a time, and see what the difference is. > > So: I suggest you try *two* independent *pairs* of tests: OK > 1a. Using your Android phone, connect using your home wireless network (I > assume you have a wireless network, if not then

> Is it more clear now? If not, I would like to give it another try and > write much more details and examples. I am still not completely sure I understand the use case. In particular since you say you want a bitcode module in the end, I don't understand how this is different from using llvm-link, it doesn't complain about undefined symbols... Can you provide an example? What are

On 08/12/11 03:56 PM, Ivan Krasin wrote: > Hi llvm team! > > I'm currently working on the extended version of llvm-ld, which has an > ability to check if all the symbols present (and fail if some symbols > are not resolved), treat archives in the right way (link all the object > files in the archive if it's specified as the regular input, not as -l) Is that the

Thanks, John. This sounds reasonable that the analysis group just provides an interface to its implementors (pass). Then I have another question, is it allowed to specify multiple pass in the same analysis group in the command line for opt? If yes, which pass will be used for the call of getAnaysis<AnalysisGroup>()? -Thomson On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 10:34 PM, John Criswell <criswell at

On 6/25/12 8:55 PM, Thomson wrote: > Thanks, John. > > This sounds reasonable that the analysis group just provides an > interface to its implementors (pass). Then I have another question, is > it allowed to specify multiple pass in the same analysis group in the > command line for opt? Yes, you can do that. Using multiple analysis passes that belong to the same group may