similar to: "Do not use Static Constructors" LLVM Coding Standard rule question

a static local still produces a static dtor, though One of the ways you can get around this is with a deliberate non-cleanup: const foo &getFoo() { static const foo &f = *new foo(); return f; } that way no global dtor runs. Obviously only works if you don't need foo's dtor to run. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 11:42 PM, Craig Topper via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

These type of constructs are less than ideal if you have something that uses LLVM as a library in a "long running" application (e.g. imagine something like photo editor that compiles "filters", and a user that loads the application on monday, and closes it on the following thursday) , as there is no (trivial) way to know that this stringmap exists, or that it may need cleaning

Sorry about the formatting... Anyway, I think there may be a misinterpretation of bound_cntl. My understanding is that: 0 => if the source is invalid or disabled, do not write a result 1 => if the source is invalid or disabled, use a 0 instead So the problematic case is where bound_cntl is 0, not when it is 1. -----Original Message----- From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tstellar at redhat.com]

I'm unsure why this is failing this week, but when I build for FreeBSD HEAD, I now get a failure to find <stdarg.h>. Very strange. Maybe its missing a -I /usr/include somewhere? [1950/2811] Building CXX object projects/compiler-rt/lib/tsan/CMakeFiles/clang_rt.tsan-x86_64.dir/rtl/tsan_interceptors.cc.o FAILED: /usr/bin/CC -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -D__STDC_FORMAT_MACROS

On 06/13/2017 07:33 PM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Jun 12, 2017, at 17:23, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On 06/12/2017 08:03 PM, Connor Abbott wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 4:56 PM, Tom Stellard <tstellar at redhat.com <mailto:tstellar at redhat.com>> wrote: >>>> On

I'm wondering about the focus on bound_cntl. Any cleared bit in the row_mask or bank_mask will also disable updating the result. Brian -----Original Message----- From: Connor Abbott [mailto:cwabbott0 at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 14, 2017 6:13 PM To: tstellar at redhat.com Cc: Matt Arsenault; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Kolton, Sam; Sumner, Brian; Pykhtin, Valery Subject: Re:

I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here. I can understand the need to drop a xiph irc server. However, I do take issue with moving to Freenode. The reason that we moved so long ago (as I understand it) is that an overwhelming flood of politics made real vorbis discussion uncomfortable. A few people took things personally and acted out, and pretty soon everybody was on edge. Just looking

I'd just like to throw my 2 cents in here. I can understand the need to drop a xiph irc server. However, I do take issue with moving to Freenode. The reason that we moved so long ago (as I understand it) is that an overwhelming flood of politics made real vorbis discussion uncomfortable. A few people took things personally and acted out, and pretty soon everybody was on edge. Just looking

I've been building clang on linux for a couple of years now, contributing to the testing on Ubuntu, but this one has me stumped: fatal error: 'asm/socket.h' file not found #include <asm/socket.h> [1556/4006] Building CXX object projects/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/CMakeFiles/RTSanitizerCommon.i386.dir/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc.o FAILED:

Hi Kostya, One unexpected piece of fallout in your recent attributes change (r148553) was that it introduced a bunch of static constructors into .o files that #include Attributes.h, due to stuff like this: const Attributes None (0); ///< No attributes have been set const Attributes ZExt (1<<0); ///< Zero extended before/after call const Attributes SExt

On Friday 28 November 2014 14:44:30 Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > [NOTE: this is not the complete patch. Once ACKed, I will make the > same mechanical change to all the other places in the library that use > this pattern.] > --- > src/guestfs-internal.h | 24 ++++++++ > src/inspect-fs-unix.c | 164 +++++++++++-------------------------------------- > 2 files changed, 59

Dear All, Are global static constructors called before main() in LLVM these days using some behind-the-scenes magic that is not explicit in the LLVM bitcode? In older versions of LLVM, llvm-gcc added an explicit function call to __main() as the first instruction in main(); __main() would call all global static constructors. It seems __main() is now gone. I've got a transform that

On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:35 PM, John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, > > Are global static constructors called before main() in LLVM these days > using some behind-the-scenes magic that is not explicit in the LLVM > bitcode? It is explicit in the bitcode. You should see an llvm.globalctors global array that has function pointers for each initializer to run. > In older versions of

On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:45 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> It is explicit in the bitcode. You should see an llvm.globalctors >> global array that has function pointers for each initializer to run. >> > Right, I saw that. I just didn't see anything from main() calling > those > functions, which led me to believe that something else is calling > those > functions

Chris Lattner wrote: > [snip] > > Yes, that will cause it to run before anything else in the module. If > you link to native code with a static ctor, the static ctors in that > code may run first. > Thanks Chris and Anton! Another question: the llvm.global.ctor array is an array of structures with an integer and a function pointer. What information does the integer

On gcc/x86, when a class or struct has a copy constructor or destructor and is passed by value to a function, the caller creates a temporary copy and passes a pointer to the copy. LLVM does the same. msvc++ does not use the pointer trick. It puts the class on the stack like any other function parameter. How to pass a class parameter `byval' while honoring the copy constructor and/or

John, On Oct 8, 2010, at 1:05 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> These initialization routines must be invoked before the PassManager will be able to resolve pipelines involving your pass. For convenience, LLVM now exposes per-library batch initialization routines, i.e. initializeScalarOpts(), which initialize all the passes within a given library in a single go. > > From an ease of

Hi! I have another question. If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1. How can I determine who call constructor? - Dmitry.

On Mar 5, 2012, at 12:40 AM, r4start wrote: > I have another question. > If ctor was called from other ctor then additional parameter must be > equal 0 otherwise it`s equal 1. The rule isn't "Is this constructor being called from another constructor?", it's "Is this constructor being used to initialize a base subobject?". That's equivalent to the Itanium

Hello fellow LLVM-ers, As those of you who follow llvm-commits have probably noticed, I've been hard at work reworking our pass infrastructure to perform pass initialization/registration without static constructors. This is a boon for clients of the LLVM libraries, as they can now control when and if initialization occurs, as opposed to being forced to incur the initialization cost at