similar to: [LLVMdev] C++ demangler for llvm tools

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

Hi, I am observing a deadlock with llvm-lit on windows 7. When I attached a debugger, the communicate() call is blocked. In file utils/lit/lit/TestRunner.py > # FIXME: There is probably still deadlock potential here. Yawn. > procData = [None] * len(procs) > procData[-1] = procs[-1].communicate() I am invoking python directly on windows to run the unit tests.

I reacted as per my case. You need CFLAGS in order to what linker you might be using. In case of clang, you can use “-fuse-ld” to control the invocation of linker. In my opinion, it is not necessary to carry forward LDFLAGS unless you want to control specific parts of the linker. In my case, I have a cross compiler for ARM and I usually compile the code with Clang

getOptLevel() gets the level from TargetMachine which is created by the Backendutil in clang with either "Default", "None" or "Aggressive". Threre is no correspondence for "Less". This boils down to , if I pass "-O1", the Target Machine is created with CodeGenOpt::Default. I am available on IRC @ sgundapa. -----Original Message----- From:

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:10 AM > To: Sumanth Gundapaneni > Cc: LLVM Developers > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMachine with optimization level passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth

Hi, I see there is an inconsistency in LLVM libc calls. For a modulo (reminder) operation, clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi generates "__modsi3". clang -target arm-none-eabi generates "__aeabi_idivmod" clang -target arm-linux-androideabi generates "__modsi3" Android bionic libc doesn't provide a __modsi3, instead it provides

Hi Rafael, I looked at the code which you pushed a while ago to check for the gold linker. Code below: execute_process( COMMAND ${CMAKE_C_COMPILER} -Wl,--version OUTPUT_VARIABLE stdout ERROR_QUIET) if("${stdout}" MATCHES "GNU gold") set(LLVM_LINKER_IS_GOLD ON) endif() I was trying to build runtime libraries (compiler-rt)

Hello! We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle C++ names. Is it true, that LLVM doesn't have the code that is capable of that, and if yes, are there any plans to add it? Depending on something like libiberty.a doesn't seem like a

Hi, I wonder if this is a valid flag in either clang/gcc. The flag in question is "-march=aarch64". I verified with latest tip and neither clang nor gcc fail to recognize this flag. This piece of code is in cmake/config-ix.cmake in compiler-rt repo. + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") + test_target_arch(aarch64

Hi Hans, I have attached a unit test which demonstrates a hang/infinite loop with the opt built with release_36 sources. The fixes are already pushed to "master" branch. The revisions r226588 and r226616 should be pushed to release_36 to fix the unit test. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I want the optimization to be turned on at -O1 and above. In my case, it is a target independent back-end pass. (Eg: MachinePipeliner) On 2017-01-04 18:10, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Sumanth Gundapaneni via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with >> the

On 28 July 2015 at 17:52, Sumanth Gundapaneni <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Android bionic libc doesn’t provide a __modsi3, instead it provides > “__aeabi_idivmod”. Hi Sumanth, Have a look at ARMSubtarget.h, functions: bool isTargetAEABI() They control the lowering of DIV/MOD calls in ARMISelLowering.cpp. Maybe Android needs to be in? cheers, --renato

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 11:43 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> > wrote: > > Hello! > > > > We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer > > testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. > > I've noticed that llvm-nm

In the same way that the core LLVM libraries have support routines for DWARF, I think that both mangling and demangling should be provided as well. I suspect that the 'Support' library is the best we have, although eventually we need to split this library up a bit. That's not really your problem though. The bigger problem is that we don't have any good way of sharing code between

On Wed, Jul 4, 2012 at 8:33 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote: > Hello! > > We want to implement in-process symbolizer for {Address,Thread}Sanitizer > testing tools that would be based on LLVM libraries. > I've noticed that llvm-nm (as well as other tools) doesn't demangle C++ > names. Is it true, that LLVM doesn't have the code that is capable

Hi all, We’re hoping to replace the demangler in some of our tools to use the LLVM demangler. We’d like to enhance it with missing functionality (legal names that it cannot demangle) and provide a set of tests that we use with the demangler that we currently use. The demangler that is currently in the LLVM tree appears to be a copy of the libc++abi implementation, and there appears to be

On 6/21/17 5:42 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I'm very interested in your work because I've just started writing a > demangler for the Microsoft mangling scheme. What I found in the > current Itanium demangler is the same as you -- it looks like it > allocates too much memory during parsing and concatenates std::strings > too often. I could see there's a (probably big)

The point here is, if you are not building for Android. You will hit this patch with cmake configuration -DCOMPILER_RT_TEST_TRIPLE=aarch64-linux-gnu + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") + test_target_arch(aarch64 "-march=aarch64") I don't see "-march=aarch64" is a valid flag on either LLVM or GCC. Should we replace this

> On May 5, 2016, at 11:50 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> On 2016-May-05, at 11:14, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 10:58 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>> +Kate >>> >>> We already have two

Hi, I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will have a prefix appended to it. At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow 1. Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed binaries. 2. Append the prefix only during install time. a. Either