similar to: [LLVMdev] Out of tree targets

I believe we'd need LLVMBuild.txt even in autoconf build - for bunch of autogenerated stuff, e.g. list of all asmprinters / asmparsers / InitializeAllTargetInfos, etc., since targets are not autoregistered anymore. On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:20 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Neil, > > Weird, I'd think the cmake build should probably do something

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

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.

The raspberry Pi2 is an armv7a chip (Cortex-A7), the first stage builds fine with the native g++ (if not a little slowly at 10+ hours), but it crashes at some point with this command line: Program arguments: /home/ben/development/llvm/3.6.0/rc2/Phase2/Release/llvmCore-3.6.0-rc2.install/bin/clang -cc1 -triple armv7-unknown-linux-gnueabihf -emit-obj -disable-free -disable-llvm-verifier

> 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

Try as I might I can't seem to get LLVM to bulid using clang/clang++. No matter what I do it insists on using /usr/bin/cc and /usr/bin/c++ which are gcc. Am I missing something obvious? I vaguely remember some document describing a stage1 compiler built by your old toolchain and a stage2 compiler but I can't find the steps to do that any more. $ CC=/usr/local/bin/clang

On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 11:01 PM, Pete Cooper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Feb 9, 2016, at 10:24 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> > wrote: > > You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty > strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad > that you've

You've raised an important point here Pete, and while I disagree pretty strongly with it (regardless of whether Lanai makes sense or not), I'm glad that you've surfaced it where we can clearly look at the issue. The idea of "it really should have users outside of just the people who have access to the HW" I think is deeply problematic for the project as a whole. Where does

Hello. Excuse me. Why CMakeLists.txt from llvm-3.9.1.src does not contain WebAssembly target? So, it is like set(LLVM_ALL_TARGETS AArch64 AMDGPU ARM BPF Hexagon Mips MSP430 NVPTX PowerPC Sparc SystemZ X86 XCore ) but not like set(LLVM_ALL_TARGETS AArch64 AMDGPU ARM BPF Hexagon Mips MSP430 NVPTX PowerPC Sparc SystemZ Webassembly X86

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

In -help output, -help - Display available options (--help-hidden for more) Both single and double - option markers are accepted, which is good. It would probably be better to refer to options consistently using the single marker in all cases. =linearscan - linear scan register allocator =pbqp - PBQP

On Apr 8, 2013, at 2:55 PM, "Robinson, Paul" <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. > While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, > there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. > Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and

Hello, I am currently trying to install vmkit from source. I am running archlinux i686 with the 3.1.9-2 kernel. This output is from the directions given on the llvm site. Below is the configureation output along with the make output. I run ./configure with the following parameters ./configure --with-llvmsrc=../llvm --with-gnu-classpath-glibj=../classpath-0.97.2/lib/glibj.zip

I keep seeing "this is a layering violation" comments on the lists. While there are a few llvm.org pages that mention layers in passing, there is nothing (that I've found) actually specifying the layers. Trying to infer the layering from the code is tedious and error-prone (or we wouldn't see so many violations in code reviews, eh?). Now, I understand that Google has some sort

There was, a long time ago, a backend that actually targetted C. It was deleted in 2012 at r153307. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > 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

Hi Russell, I took care of these points except for > In -version output, > > Low Level Virtual Machine (http://llvm.org/): > llvm version 2.6svn > Optimized build. > Built Feb 14 2010(11:05:20). > > Registered Targets: > alpha - Alpha [experimental] > arm - ARM > bfin - Analog Devices Blackfin [experimental] > c - C

While looking at why some generated code for SPARC was poor, I ran into the fact that the MachineScheduler is not yet enabled by default -- it's opt in for each target. Having a bunch of deprecatedish code around was a bit confusing for newbie me. So, I suggested on IRC that perhaps it's been long enough by now that any target that hasn't switched over probably isn't actually

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Tuesday, February 9, 2016 10:59:58 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Lanai backend > > > Hi Sean > > > I think you’ve

> I have installed LLVM on my machine (ubuntu) a while ago. I think my LLVM version is 2.8. is it supported in 2.8 ? When I install i didn't configure LLVM for mips. Do I have to configure it when I build ? I don't know what's the default llvm configuration for ubuntu! But you can check for mips support using "llc --version". Yes, it's supported in 2.8, although it

Hi Yaron, I know you sent me some emails before about regression testing on MSYS2 So you might have some idea about this I am getting a regression error on check-llvm. With the llvm/trunk/test/ExecutionEngine/Interpreter/intrinsics.ll FAIL: LLVM :: ExecutionEngine/Interpreter/intrinsics.ll (7635 of 14266) > ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: >