similar to: How to convert assembly code to executable

Deer All, I wanted to write MachineFunctionPass which needs to be run after global register allocation pass. I have read LLVM documentation and blogs and able to write simple pass which will is invoked through opt command line. However, I could able to find any blogs or document to explains clear steps for writing MachineFunctionPass. Please suggest some documents or blogs which will help me

Hello everyone, I have written simple LLVM passes, but I cannot able to write a MachineFunctionPass pass. I am following the steps form the following link but it is not working: http://www.gabriel.urdhr.fr/2014/09/26/adding-a-llvm-pass/ Please share the sample MachineFunctionPass code or steps to follow to write MachineFunctionPass. Thanks, Bala -- Thanks, Bala IIITA Allahabad --------------

Hello All, I am building llvm-clang tool chain for *arm target* by following the steps from http://clang.llvm.org/docs/CrossCompilation.html *However when I tried following cmake command for build tool chain it gives the error message :* #CC='clang' CXX='clang++' cmake -G Ninja /home/iiita/llvm-exp/llvm -DCMAKE_CROSSCOMPILING=True

Hello All, I am building llvm-clang cross tool chain for arm target, after successful build for Linux host now I am now building toolchain for *arm target*. However, I am getting below error message which seems to be confusing and not getting any idea how to resolve this issue. *Command :* #CC='clang' CXX='clang++' cmake -G Ninja /home/iiita/crossbuild/llvm

First you should learn how to write a pass and then a MachineFunctionPass. >From LLVM website, you can refer to http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html And for outside pass, you can refer to http://adriansampson.net/blog/llvm.html It's a great article. And the author put the source code on Github <https://github.com/sampsyo/llvm-pass-skeleton>. 2016-03-01 14:36 GMT+08:00

Hi All, I wanted to collect the register usage stats for the program assigned by compiler(in other words "how many time each register will be accessed by the program when it will execute"). How to write LLVM pass which will analyse the code after LLVM global register allocation pass and output the stats. Regards, -Bala -- Thanks, Bala IIITA Allahabad -------------- next part

Hmmm that is a funny sequence. I know the .cfi directives are represented as pseudo-instructions, but they should not be causing us to emit .loc directives. They have no effect on the .text section so probably they should just be excluded from emitting a location, same as DBG_VALUE is excluded. Also I believe the label there is unnecessary, but that's a separate issue. Regarding "how

There is already –mllvm –use-unknown-locations which ought to trigger this. Don't need my patch. --paulr From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 4:08 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Libfuzzer depending on uninitialized debug info On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:37 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I've determined that the "pesky" .loc is indeed because of the .cfi > directive that comes immediately after it. Some of the CFI instructions > have source locations, some don't. But, emitting a source location for a > CFI instruction is inappropriate. It's easy enough to

(2) cause CFI instructions not to emit any .loc directives; done in r289256, plus r289288 (3) file a bug to have someone audit LoopVectorizer.cpp to see whether it is using SetCurrentDebugLocation in the right places; haven't done that part yet (4) reapply my "line 0" patch, which will be the 3rd attempt. r289468 Please ping me when you do (4). Also, will there be a flag to disable

On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:50 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > Can gdb handle these? i.e. is it just gold that has the problem? > Yep, it's just gold when it's building the gdb-index (an accelerator table for GDB) > Conditioning on debugger tuning when it's not the debugger that has the > problem… icky. > It does. Though to a lesser

Adrian: any thoughts? Has LLDB been fixed to support this yet? On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 6:33 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > My inclination would be to use "disable if 32-bit and –ggnu-pubnames" as > the default, > Unfortunately Nico points out that Chrome doesn't currently use -ggnu-pubnames :/ So to continue to work "out of the box"

On some previous occasion that introduced additional indirection (don't remember the details) my debugger people groused about the additional performance cost of chasing down data in a different object-file section. So we (Sony) might be happier with low_pc as expressions, than with a ranges-always solution. But hard to say without data, and getting both modes in at least as a temporary

Hi LLVM project Leaders, I am a software engineer working on several other open source projects, recently I am very interested in LLVM technology, espically on backend part. I have taken two months studying the documents from llvm.org in my spare time. As a beginner, I would like to contribute some code to LLVM project, from the "Google Summer of Code 2019", I found one project

It might be a wider problem than libfuzzer. I did want to raise the problem asap and libfuzzer is something we know has the problem. If it came across as "libfuzzer is evil" that was not my intent, sorry! --paulr From: Kostya Serebryany [mailto:kcc at google.com] Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2016 2:53 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

Another thing to consider about your feature idea is that the output may be noisy depending on what you were hoping for. SLH tries to mitigate anything that could potentially be a problem and thus it instruments almost every branch, load, and function entry, for example. There isn't a lot of signal about what is really a gadget among the code instrumented by SLH. It really tries to be

I don't totally follow the proposed encoding change & would appreciate a small example. Is the idea to replace e.g. an 'AT_low_pc (<direct address>) + relocation for <direct address>' with an 'AT_low_pc (<indirection into a pool of addresses> + offset)', s.t. the cost of a relocation for the address is paid down the more it's used? How do you figure

Context: In r309526 (with a followup fix in r309529) I implemented the use of DWARF's debug_ranges base address specifier entries to reduce the number of object file relocations needed for debug_ranges*. * in a particular binary internally, an optimized build had a 70% reduction in debug_ranges.reloc, a 16% decrease in total object size (with compressed debug info and fission) Nico noted

> On Jan 16, 2017, at 10:00 AM, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > What is the end goal? If the goal is roughly "if a user passes -O0 when compiling a TU in LTO mode, their final binary should have functions that look like the result of -O0 noLTO compilation", then the frontend can just emit a normal -O0 object file I think. What is the

Thanks, Galina. It doesn't explain why the test worked on some bots but not this one, but Justin's workaround is okay with me. --paulr From: Galina Kistanova [mailto:gkistanova at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2017 10:09 AM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: Davide Italiano; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Problem with 'sed' on one Windows bot? There is nothing