similar to: [LLVMdev] how to change a compiler from a host to a target in Clang's assembler and linker

Konbanwa, Etani san, It might be clang driver issue. Move to cfe-dev. 2012/7/4 ETANI NORIKO <noriko-e at fc.ritsumei.ac.jp>: > I would like to ask you how to use Clang in cross-compile environment. My environment is as follows: > ------ > HOST: 32-bit Fedora 16 with Intel Core i7 > gcc/g++ compiler available > TARGET: 32-bit mips-typed linux > gnu gcc/g++ for

Hi, On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 9:21 AM, ETANI NORIKO <noriko-e at fc.ritsumei.ac.jp> wrote: > Please advise me how to change a compiler from a host one to a target one. Suppose MIPS toolchain is installed in the $MIPS folder (i.e. mips-linux-gnu-gcc is in the $MIPS/bin folder). Note, if you want to generate little-endian code and/or 64-bit code, you have to create the following links in the

Hi, On 32-bit Fedora 16, llvm and clang can be worked for OpenCL API and its application. These programs must be cross-compiled for mips-typed linux for our embedded system. Here, I cannot find out any documents to explain how to implement llvm and clang for cross-compiler. Please advise me how to implement llvm and clang. Regards, -Noriko -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hello, I was trying to compile a simple program with the CppBackend like so: $ clang str_arg.c -emit-llvm -S $ llc -march=cpp str_arg.ll It produces a file `str_arg.cpp` as expected, however it doesn't seem that the resulting file is correct. For once, it includes `<llvm/Analysis/Verifier.h>` which seems to have been moved to `llvm/IR/Verifier.h` as far back as 2013. My question is

Hi, I am wondering why we dont support PPC32 LE? Here is the output of llvm-mc --version, in which only PPC32, PPC64 & PPC64LE are supported. $ llvm-mc --version LLVM (http://llvm.org/): LLVM version 3.6.2 Optimized build with assertions. Built Aug 2 2015 (11:39:46). Default target: x86_64-apple-darwin15.4.0 Host CPU: core-avx2 Registered Targets: aarch64 - AArch64

> > The word 'all' is what still bothers me here. If any one piece of the information is derived from incorrect information in the triple, then the behaviour will likely be incorrect. > > If it's possible to be derived from the triple then it's going to be correct or the triple is incorrect. > If it's something that's overridden later because it can't be

On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:20 AM, Daniel Sanders <Daniel.Sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-x86_64-linux-gnu-debian8.tar.xz (sha1sum: 2dedc6136d7cfbac8348652c543887964d92393c) > Native: All ok > Cross compiling to MIPS: All ok > > clang+llvm-3.8.0-rc3-mips-linux-gnu.tar.xz (sha1sum: f286149dbb2ea7e194c5c3719b6cded476f6e65f) > All ok

Rewrote the ABI example in terms of clang -cc1as which is a supported tool. Note that the same problems exist and that they are unrelated to the existence of TargetMachine or not since TargetMachine gets the relevant information from the Triple it holds. This information is incorrect, even as a starting point. Please do read the other examples in my previous email. It contains a number of

> > Note that the same problems exist and that they are unrelated to the existence > > of TargetMachine or not since TargetMachine gets the relevant information from > > the Triple it holds. This information is incorrect, even as a starting point. > > I believe we're going to disagree here as the TargetMachine does not get all of its > information from the Triple -

Yes, it's quite obviously dead and should be deleted. When I brought this up last time -- after realizing that it wasn't actually a backend that targetted c++ (which might be useful), but rather just something that emitted IR by calling llvm C++ functions (which really isn't IMO) -- someone also pointed out that it also really ought to be using IRBuilder...if anyone cared about it.

> OK, I'm going to just reply to the last because I think it's the most important part of all this and would like to try to have us side tracked again. If you'd like I can reply to it, but let's take the last part first :) > > > > Could you please provide some examples of things that are impossible right now > > > with command lines, how those interact with

I upgraded my versions of llvm, clang and compiler-rt to the top-of-tree versions from last night (r180162, April 24). I recompiled debug versions of llvm, clang and my code. I then regenerated my test case and the results were the same - I can list lines of dwarf1.lsp in lldb but I can't set break-points or do anything else (what else should I be able to do?). The updated file that

> > I assume with target you mean the backend? Consider the x86 backend. It > supports 32bit and 64bit mode, with the GNU x32 ABI in between. There > are three different executable formats support (ELF, PE, MachO) with > different constraints. Some platforms require 32bit alignment of the > stack, others require 128bit alignment. The list goes on. The triple > specifies >

Hi, I noticed a failure of mksh built with klibc on mips64el. The failing test, on a high level, is this: :>a sleep 2 :>b test a -nt b echo $? This is supposed to echo 1 (false) because a is not newer than b. The test code is roughly: // const char *opnd1 = "a"; // const char *opnd2 = "b"; // struct stat b1, b2; // int s; return (test_stat(opnd1, &b1) ==

One other thing that may or may not illuminate the situation. When I run under gdb (on OS X 10.8.3 this is an ancient version of gdb 6.3.5 - but it works with clang compiled C++ code) I get the following error when I try to list a line in dwarf1.lsp: Dwarf Error: Cannot handle DW_FORM_<unknown> in DWARF reader [in module /Users/meister/Development/cando/src/tests/core/dwarf1.bundle] (gdb)

> after realizing that it wasn't actually a backend that targetted c++ > (which might be useful) Exact same thing just happened to me.. it's not obvious, especially when reading the llc info: $ llc -version Registered Targets: arm - ARM arm64 - ARM64 (little endian) cpp - C++ backend x86 - 32-bit X86: Pentium-Pro and above x86-64

In preparation for the klibc 2.0.5 release I wrote a basic test script which: 1. Builds for each architecture (with a cross-compiler where needed) 2. Runs several statically-linked programs (using qemu-user where needed): a. Many self-test programs b. "sh -c exit" c. "sh -c '.../bin/true; exit'" The results for the architectures I was able to test are:

Eric Christopher echristo at gmail.com<mailto:echristo at gmail.com> writes: > The lack of a TargetMachine at the MC level was something I brought up a long time ago in this thread > with my proposed solutions. This is what needs to be fixed, especially given that targets can switch ISA, > ABI, floating point, etc within a single assemble action. I’ve been watching this thread in

I think I reported this bug in the past. At that time, I was told that it is a bug of autoconf. ./configure does not recognize Linux on DEC Alpha 21164PC (a cheap version of Alpha EV56), so all the compilation flags were set incorrectly. I don't know the right way to fix it (I don't know how autoconf works yet ...), but the following patch fixes the problem. Thank you, Naoki Naoki

I am filing this as a bug report so it doesn't get lost. Martyn -----FW: <XFMail.000616094624.plummer@iarc.fr>----- Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 09:46:24 +0200 (CEST) Sender: owner-r-devel@stat.math.ethz.ch From: Martyn Plummer <plummer@iarc.fr> To: Naoki Takebayashi <ntakebay@bio.indiana.edu> Subject: RE: [Rd] [PATCH] ./configure fails to recognize alphapca56 (R-1. Cc: