similar to: [LLVMdev] AttributeSet from Modules

On Sep 3, 2013, at 9:04 AM, Raul Fernandes Herbster <raulherbster at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello! > > clang defines some AttributeSet, for example: > > attributes #0 = { nounwind uwtable "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true"

Hello, is there any option to run LLVM unit tests on ARM from your desktop? I mean, the code is properly cross-compiled on your desktop and you want to run the unit tests automatically on an ARM board. Chrood might work, but I am looking for some option like <runremote.sh --host XXX --user ....>. I have seen something related to it in projects/test-suite/Makefile.programs (REMOTE_HOST,

Hi, I need to instrument the code in order to generate an event (call a certain function) whenever X instructions have been executed. I'm using MachineFunctionPass to get machine-dependent representation of each LLVM function in the program. However, such pass doesn't allow to modify such functions. Is there any other class so I can modify MachineFunctions? Thanks in advance, Raul. --

On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Raul Fernandes Herbster wrote: > I need to instrument the code in order to generate an event (call a certain > function) whenever X instructions have been executed. I'm using > MachineFunctionPass to get machine-dependent representation of each LLVM > function in the program. However, such pass doesn't allow to modify such > functions. Is there any other

Hi everyone, We are using the llvm2cpp feature of LLVM in the VMKit project and there are some issues that I would like to point out. I made a tiny reproducible example here, to be clear: echo "int main() { return 0; };" > test.c && clang test.c -emit-llvm -c -o - | llc -march=cpp -cppgen=function -cppfor=main -o - This command is supposed to generate the C++ code to

Hi, I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. The latest build has changed the method addAttr so that it requires an AttributeSet argument (Argument::addAttr(AttributeSet AS). I'm not sure how to adjust to this change. The

+Bill who worked on the attribute change On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Harris BAKIRAS <h.bakiras at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We are using the llvm2cpp feature of LLVM in the VMKit project and there are > some issues that I would like to point out. > > I made a tiny reproducible example here, to be clear: > > echo "int main() { return 0; };"

On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:32, Bill Wendling wrote: > No. It hasn't been written up. We typically don't do write-ups for API changes. However, we do list the thing we do change in the ReleaseNotes (these changes haven't made it there though). The attributes API has undergone a horrendous amount of churn over the last few months, both before and after the 3.2 release. I've lost

On Feb 7, 2013, at 6:23 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Just my 2 cents. How about sent a "HEADS UP" message to the ML > before you make changes. You can say "Hey, if you're using those > API I am going to change, please wait until I say everything is > stable." I think David can wait until you say the

On Feb 4, 2013, at 11:54 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:32, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> No. It hasn't been written up. We typically don't do write-ups for API changes. However, we do list the thing we do change in the ReleaseNotes (these changes haven't made it there though). > > The attributes API has

On 6 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Bill Wendling wrote: > You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps that had to happen before the attributes classes were in a proper state for the new feature work. The typical way

On Feb 7, 2013, at 12:14 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 6 Feb 2013, at 20:20, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps that had

On Jan 30, 2013, at 8:20 PM, Christian Schafmeister <chris.schaf at verizon.net> wrote: > > Hi, > > I recently upgraded to the latest LLVM build and encountered a problem where the API for Argument::addAttr has changed. > > Previously it was Argument::addAttr(Attribute A) and I was able to work with this. > > The latest build has changed the method addAttr so

On 7 Feb 2013, at 22:25, Bill Wendling wrote: >>> You don't understand what I'm saying. The APIs were changing way too quickly for it to make sense to create such a document. I tried as best as I could to mitigate all of the problems, but there were several intermediate steps that had to happen before the attributes classes were in a proper state for the new feature work. The

On 8 Feb 2013, at 09:53, Chandler Carruth wrote: > I also think you should remember that it is explicitly *not* a goal of the LLVM project to optimize its development process for out-of-tree projects, and instead it *is* a goal to optimize the development process for in-tree efforts. >From the front page of the LLVM web site, point number 1: > • The LLVM Core libraries provide a modern

On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:31 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 6 Feb 2013, at 07:50, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> On Feb 4, 2013, at 11:54 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:32, Bill Wendling wrote: >>> >>>> No. It hasn't been written up. We typically

On 6 Feb 2013, at 07:50, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Feb 4, 2013, at 11:54 PM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On 5 Feb 2013, at 01:32, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> No. It hasn't been written up. We typically don't do write-ups for API changes. However, we do list the thing we do change in the ReleaseNotes (these changes

Since updating to LLVM 3.3, the system is generating attributes such as: attributes #0 = { nounwind "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "unsafe-fp-math"="false"

Hi, I'm trying to instrument llvm bytecodes using opt. I performed the following commands: llvm-gcc -g -emit-llvm test.c -c -o test.bc opt -insert-edge-profiling test.bc -o output.bc llc output.bc -o output.s gcc output.s -o test.out However, it can't find symbol llvm_start_edge_profiling. /tmp/ccw7GH4c.o: In function `main': /home/raul/LLVM/tests//test.c:8: undefined reference

Using the New Attributes Classes Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary to do this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful of attributes --- e.g. command line options. The old way of handling attributes consisted of representing them as a bit mask of values. This bit mask was stored in a "list" structure that was reference