similar to: [LLVMdev] CommandLine does not work under cygwin

Hi,I've been trying to code through CommandLine the options I want my tool accepts, but I find quite impossible to achieve robustly what I need .Look, I want the tool accepts a list of arguments in a particular order. For this goal, I know the cl::Positional flag. But, the problem is that the first argument must be one of a set of options (like a kind of subcommand of the tool). In my case,

Hi Daniel, Just in the moment you replied my message, I was rewriting it as I hadn't noticed it hadn't a correct format. Sorry for that and thanks for answering it anyway. > ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) > Yes, that is exactly what I need. It's a pity commandLine doesn't implement that possibility. So I will do what

Hi Daniel, I would like to go deeper with CommandLine and I was asking if you could help me again. Look, following the same example you put in the last message: ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) What I really really want is the same except I don't want the "--" prefix is present in any of the arguments. ./prog <option1>

On 10 May 2013 09:44, Pedro Delgado Perez <pedro.delgadoperez at mail.uca.es> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > I would like to go deeper with CommandLine and I was asking if you could > help me again. > > Look, following the same example you put in the last message: > > ./prog <option1> | ( <option2> --arg1 --arg2) | ( <option3> --arg1 ) > > What I

Hi Daniel, Thanks for your answer. > I am considering fixing the bug in the LLVM CommandLine library but is > going to be a long time before I can look at it. So don't wait for me > to do that. > Ok, ok, but, if you end up fixing this, please keep me post. > If you are really desperate to have the command line options in the > way you want they you may need to implement

Hi, I've been trying to code through CommandLine the options I want my tool accepts, but I find find quite impossible to achieve robustly what I need. Look, I want the tool accepts a list of arguments in a particular order. For this goal, I know the cl::Positional flag. But, the problem is that the first argument must be one of a set of options. In my case, only the three next commands are

Hi Bekket, I don't see any use case in the codebase adding clEnumValEnd at the end of list (for example, [1]), I also don't see there is clEnumValEnd. Do I miss something here? [1] http://llvm.org/doxygen/DwarfDebug_8cpp_source.html Regards, chenwj 2017-06-06 9:53 GMT+08:00 Bekket McClane via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hi, > > Can anyone help reviewing

Hi, The argument list for cl::values in command line library should be end with null or clEnumValEnd. But the tutorial page(http://llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html <http://llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html>) doesn’t follow the rule, which would cause program crash during runtime. I’d send a code review: https://reviews.llvm.org/D33861 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D33861> Please cc other

Hi, I'm currently working on the KLEE tool that uses LLVM (2.9 because that's what KLEE currently uses) and in particular I'm having an unexpected problem with the llvm::cl::bits class. I try something like this... enum testx { A,B }; cl::bits<testx> queryLoggingOptions("option",cl::values( clEnumVal(A,"this is a"),

I checked the LLVM master code and find that the “-use-unknown-locations” option and its related logic is only supported for Dwarf debug info as below. These codes are missing in the Codeview side. It looks the “-use-unknown-locations” option logic is not complex, could we port the code logic into llvm\lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter\CodeViewDebug.cpp as well? I’ve submitted a BZ for this requirment:

OK, maybe I was wrong and the “-use-unknown-locations” option is not the issue root cause. I'm not familiar with the LLVM codebase and I appreciate any suggestion on how to debug this issue. I'd like to know is it a clang issue or a lld issue? Is there a tool which can dump the obj file debug location info? Let me simplify the previous test case to reproduce this issue. All what you need

Owen Anderson wrote: > > On May 16, 2009, at 7:47 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > >> Also, atomic ops are usually pretty low level things used for >> nonblocking algorithms or to build higher level locking constructs. Is >> that the plan here too? It seems like you'd want to avoid anything too >> fancy since LLVM has to run on so many different architectures

On May 17, 2009, at 5:23 AM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: > Owen Anderson wrote: >> >> On May 16, 2009, at 7:47 PM, Luke Dalessandro wrote: >> >>> Also, atomic ops are usually pretty low level things used for >>> nonblocking algorithms or to build higher level locking >>> constructs. Is >>> that the plan here too? It seems like you'd want

Aaron, > Maybe we should collect references and do some LLVM PIC documentation and > put it on LLVM website ? What you mean as "LLVM PIC documentation"? What should be included there? > Okay. We need documentation, what is the difference between DynamicNoPIC and > full PIC ? >From TargetMachine.cpp (actually this is show in llc --help): cl::values(

Hi, So, SMACK is a software verifier based around LLVM, and you can find more info (PDF, title, abstract) about our recent publication here: http://soarlab.org/2014/05/smack-decoupling-source-language-details-from-verifier-implementations/ I would appreciate if you could add it to your list of LLVM-based publications. Thanks! Best, -- Zvonimir -- http://zvonimir.info http://soarlab.org/

Thanks Bill! So should I email you again in 5 months? -- http://www.zvonimir.info On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Zvonimir, > > We normally list projects that use LLVM when we do a release. The next release will be 3.3, which will probably start up in 5 months or so. > > -bw > > On Feb 3, 2013, at 9:16 PM, Zvonimir

Thanks for your help John... Yup, I looked at Local.cpp even before I fired off my question to the mailing list. Take a peek here at line 464: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/poolalloc/blob/master/lib/DSA/Local.cpp Based on my understanding of this line, if AtomicCmpXchgInst does not return a pointer type, nothing gets merged. And in the example I posted, a pointer value is indeed not returned

Hi guys, So, I've been a long-term user of LLVM, and currently me and my students are actively using LLVM in several projects of ours. At this point, I would greatly appreciate if you could add SMACK static checker, which relies on LLVM, to the list of LLVM projects. SMACK is an open-source static checker built on top of LLVM, and we are hoping to get more collaborators and contributors this

On Feb 6, 2013, at 7:22 AM, "Criswell, John T" <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > Dear All, > > We can add a link to the SMACK project on the LLVM User's page at http://llvm.org/Users.html at any time. Bill, does your comment refer to the release notes, or something else? > Just to the release notes. At least, that's when we do blurbs. :) -bw > In any

Hi, We recently published another paper that leverages LLVM (through our SMACK software verifier and novel tool called Whoop), and this time we focus on detecting concurrency bugs in device drivers: http://soarlab.org/2015/08/ase2015-ddr/ You can find all the required info (PDF, title, abstract, etc.) at the above webpage. I would appreciate if you could add this paper to your list of