similar to: [LLVMdev] How to link code into EXE, or, am I doing this wrong?

On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 8:28 AM, John Slagel <john.slagel at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've been writing a 80's era-flavor of QuickBASIC compiler based on LLVM, > and it's come surprisingly far very quickly, LLVM is working great. GOSUB's, > GOTO's, FIELD statements. > I'm using Visual Studio 2010. > Here's my setup: I use LLVM to turn my AST

> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t syntax > assemblers.  It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and MASM is > not production quality for use by a compiler.  This is why visual studio > doesn't go through it.  Long term, we'd like LLVM to be able to write out .o > files directly, if you're interested in adding PECOFF

Hi Rui, Not sure if you have seen this problem, but I have been running into this problem when I run the lld tests and the failure occurence is once in 5 times. lld: ../tools/lld/lib/Core/Resolver.cpp:402: void lld::Resolver::deadStripOptimize(): Assertion `symAtom' failed. #0 0x4b05ae llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(_IO_FILE*)

Hello everyone, I was following the discussion, but I have to admit, that my skills aren't high enough to follow you guys. For my current exception problem, I don't have to stick around with the PECOFF format, so I used clang to don't compile to a PECOFF, but to a ELF file. Interesting, now I'm missing the functions: __cxa_allocate_exception __cxa_throw _ZTI I loaded the DLL

+ Nick Rui, Does PECOFF writer need the filename in the writer as well, I am not sure if linker scripts are supported with PECOFF though. If PECOFF also needs it, I think it makes sense to store the filename in the Atom as the native format needs to store that information. The only option for the ELF writer to know this information is to use References if other flavors dont need the

On Jan 21, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> Nope, llvm's .s output is only compatible with GAS and other at&t >> syntax >> assemblers. It turns out that MASM syntax is highly ambiguous and >> MASM is >> not production quality for use by a compiler. This is why visual >> studio >> doesn't go through it. Long term, we'd like

Historically? I implemented support for exceptions back in LLVM 3.3, before LLVM had an implementation of a Windows unwinder. Currently? As recent as LLVM 4.0, I don't think the JIT was fully capable of handling COFF files, and LLVM wouldn't emit the correct sections (with the COFF-formatted unwind tables) when used in ELF mode. The prolog is known to be standard since Julia disables FPO

Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but I was wondering the status? (See below) Thanks!! On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Caldarale, Charles R < Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> wrote: > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > > On Behalf Of John Slagel > > Subject: [LLVMdev] Saving a reference to a Basic Block? > > > Is

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of John Slagel > Subject: [LLVMdev] Saving a reference to a Basic Block? > Is there a way to save a reference to a Basic Block that gets all fixed > up in the linker, so that you can branch to it during execution? We use the blockaddress() constant generator, coupled with the indirectbr

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the --x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is an obvious question)? I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the output, the one thing it didn't like was

> By default, the cmake build generates Visual Studio project files for > the X86 target only. Take a look at > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars > > for learning how to build other targets. OK thanks, I'll look at that. In the meantime, is it possible to get the assembly generated by llc to work wiht ML? That would probably be the ideal solution. Cheers Jim

Hi! I think llvm-mc did amazing work and I'm stunned ;). - So I start reading source-code and making notes. To my question: At which state is the disassembly for PEcoff or ELF? I read the blog (http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html): """ The MC components have been designed to be object file independent (e.g. work for MachO, ELF, PE-COFF etc) but only have

Hi, Is it OK to use llvm-mc in the lld test suite? I do not want to maintain assembler, object and test files for small MIPS target related test. Instead of that I prefer to keep a single test file with assembler code and test suite instructions. Is it acceptable way? -- Simon Atanasyan

Hey llvm'ers, I have been working on a dlltool replacement for llvm. Here is my initial differential https://reviews.llvm.org/D29892 It is based on some functionality that already exists in lld. I added functionality to support, PE COFF Weak Externals and of course a front end to actually use it. I believe the work here can also be used for llvm-lib and lessen the load on lld. I would like

On Jan 21, 2010, at 12:54 PM, Jim Crafton wrote: >> By default, the cmake build generates Visual Studio project files for >> the X86 target only. Take a look at >> >> http://www.llvm.org/docs/CMake.html#llvmvars >> >> for learning how to build other targets. > > OK thanks, I'll look at that. > > In the meantime, is it possible to get the

Hi, It looks like each flavor chooses to save references in its own way. The GNU flavor (ELF) uses a single vector of references and uses referenceStartIndex/referenceEndIndex to point to the references for each DefinedAtom. Darwin(Mach-O) / WinLink (PECOFF) uses a different way of storing references ? Is there a plan to make the WinLink/Darwin(Mach-O) use a single vector of references too

Hi, I have tried using SVN lld to link a simple C++ file compiled with clang -target i686-pc-mingw32 but failed with an assert Assertion failed: ret, file ..\..\..\..\..\..\tools\lld\lib\ReaderWriter\PECOFF\ReaderCOFF.cpp, line 706 Is this supposed to work? What can SVN lld link on Windows 32/64 bit? Yaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 6:46 PM Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > > On May 1, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > *The atom model is not the best model for some architectures * > > > The atom model is a good fit for the llvm compiler model for all > architectures. There is a one-to-one mapping between llvm::GlobalObject >

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > This it totally "armchair quarterbacking," but I am a little frustrated > that we've come to conflate flavors and targets. > > The original intent of flavors was to internally translate each flavor > into a neutral lld-native command line syntax. We now have baked in >

Is there a way to save a reference to a Basic Block that gets all fixed up in the linker, so that you can branch to it during execution? (Or maybe just a better way to do what I'm trying to do?) In my old-school BASIC compiler that I'm writing with LLVM, for each GOSUB, I keep a map of an integer ID and a pointer to the basic block following the GOSUB to return to. Then, when a BASIC