similar to: defaults for FP contraction [e.g. fused multiply-add]: suggestion and patch to be slightly more aggressive and to make Clang`s optimization settings closer to having the same meaning as when they are given to GCC [at least for "-O3"]

On Sep 10, 2016, at 3:33 AM, Steve Canon <scanon at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Pretty much. In particular, imagine a user trying to debug an unexpected floating point result caused by conversion of a*b + c into fma(a, b, c). >> >> I think that’s unavoidable, because of the way the optimization levels work. Even fma contraction is on by default (something I’d

On 09/09/2016 04:31 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: > Gating this on -Owhatever is dangerous, . We should simply default to the pragma “on” state universally. Why so? [honestly asking, not arguing] My guess: b/c we don`t want programs to give different results when compiled at different "-O<...>" settings with the exception of "-Ofast". At any rate, the above change is

I've tried to build something that wanted ms-extensions on OpenBSD. Long story short, didn't work so well, because all system includes lead to <machine/_types.h> #ifndef __cplusplus typedef int __wchar_t; #endif and since ms-extensions includes __char_t as a built-in, this did fail abysmally. It would be simple to fix in OpenBSD, assuming clang did tell us it

On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Kamaljit Lall <klall at factset.com> wrote: > I am using the clang API (version 3.1 - trunk 153913) to compile some > very simple code as follows**** > > class MyClass > { > ~MyClass() ; > > }; > > MyClass::~MyClass() > { > > } > > int main() > { > return 0; > } **** > > My problem is that

> On Sep 9, 2016, at 3:27 PM, Steve Canon via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Sep 9, 2016, at 6:21 PM, Abe Skolnik <a.skolnik at samsung.com <mailto:a.skolnik at samsung.com>> wrote: > >> On 09/09/2016 04:31 PM, Stephen Canon wrote: >> >>> Gating this on -Owhatever is dangerous, .

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:01:35PM +0200, Dimitry Andric wrote: > On 11 May 2017, at 20:04, Marc Espie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I've tried to build something that wanted ms-extensions on OpenBSD. > > Long story short, didn't work so well, because all system includes > > lead to > > > > <machine/_types.h>

Hi, how do I compile c code from a char array in clang? Im using code from the interpreter example. Thanks. char *cCode; // the char array // fill array with code goes here... // Initialize a compiler invocation object from the clang (-cc1) arguments. const driver::ArgStringList &CCArgs = Cmd->getArguments(); llvm::OwningPtr<CompilerInvocation> CI(new CompilerInvocation);

no, does not help, ive already looked at it. none none-17 wrote: > > This thread may help: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-June/009507.html > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:50 AM, gafferuk <gafferuk at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Hi, how do I compile c code from a char array in clang? >> >> Im using code from the interpreter

This thread may help: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-June/009507.html On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 2:50 AM, gafferuk <gafferuk at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, how do I compile c code from a char array in clang? > > Im using code from the interpreter example. > Thanks. > > char *cCode; // the char array > // fill array with code goes here... > > >

I don't know how ccons works, but it may do what you need. http://code.google.com/p/ccons/ Le 15 août 2010 à 14:48, gafferuk a écrit : > > no, does not help, ive already looked at it. > > > > none none-17 wrote: >> >> This thread may help: >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-dev/2010-June/009507.html >> >> On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at

Heres my full code listing, im totally stuck. // Whistle.cpp : Defines the entry point for the console application. // #include "stdafx.h" #include "clang/CodeGen/CodeGenAction.h" #include "clang/Driver/Compilation.h" #include "clang/Driver/Driver.h" #include "clang/Driver/Tool.h" #include

I am using the clang API (version 3.1 - trunk 153913) to compile some very simple code as follows class MyClass { ~MyClass() ; }; MyClass::~MyClass() { } int main() { return 0; } My problem is that I get the error message: test.cpp:20:10: error: destructor cannot have a return type MyClass::~MyClass() If someone can point me to the right direction that would be great. It compiles fine if

We have an application that allows the user to compile and execute C++ code on the fly, using Orc JIT v2, via the LLJIT class. And we would like to extend it to allow the user to provide CUDA source code as well, for GPU programming. But I am having a hard time figuring out how to do it. To JIT compile C++ code, we do basically as follows: 1. call Driver::BuildCompilation(), which returns a

Hi Eli, Attached zipped file, named, "fopenmp_option_support.tar.gz" contains the first patch, along with relevant *test case*. This patch is to support the option "-fopenmp" option in Clang. Following files are changed in this patch. Please start going through this patch, and let me know comments. Meanwhile, I will prepare next patch.

Sound right now like you are emitting an LLVM module? The best strategy is probably to use to emit a PTX module and then pass that to the CUDA driver. This is what we do on the Julia side in CUDA.jl. Nvidia has a somewhat helpful tutorial on this at https://github.com/NVIDIA/cuda-samples/blob/c4e2869a2becb4b6d9ce5f64914406bf5e239662/Samples/vectorAdd_nvrtc/vectorAdd.cpp and

Hello all, I've found an old post (November 2016) http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-November/107006.html which discussed debug information for optimized code. At the end of that discussion, Adrian broached the interest in making -O1 only enable optimizations. I see in the code ( *clang/lib/Frontend/CompilerInvocation.cpp*, in function *getOptimizationLevel*) that *-Og* option is

On Tue, Jun 2, 2020 at 6:38 PM Richard Smith via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Tue, 2 Jun 2020 at 05:08, Andrzej Warzynski via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> *TL;DR* >> >> We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable >> further work on Flang driver. >> >> *SUMMARY* >> We

Hi, clang deals with #pragma STDC FP_CONTRACT and updates the setting of FPOptions::fp_contract, but how is this made use of in the back end? Is there some way to find out, for any given pair of floating-point operations, whether they can be contracted into one (according to their local pragma settings), or is this not yet implemented? Al -- IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any

On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 2:33 AM, Mahesha HS <mahesha.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: >> On 10/13/2012 04:38 AM, Mahesha HS wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 5:14 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 10,

Hi, I'm not sure if this is a libclang, llvm::cl or clang-interpreter issue so I'll try posting here for a response. I am using libclang as a frontend to the LLVM JIT (3.3 release). I started from the clang-interpreter example and have everything working (given a C/C++ source file I can have it JIT'd to memory and executed) for a single run. When I try to compile a second source