similar to: How to add new arch for llvm-cov show?

Hi vedant, The program didn't pass the checking "OF->getArch() != Triple(Arch).getArch()" loadBinaryFormat in CoverageMappingReader.cpp and returned an error. It's because "OF->getArch()" returned null and "Triple(Arch).getArch()" returned XXXX(name of my arch). The returned value of " OF->getArch()" is decided by "

Hi vedant, 1. The definition is from llvm/Supprot/ELF.h. But this machine information(e_machine) is given to compiler at lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp. I greped the whole llvm project and found that e_machine was assigned at only two files. One was lib/MC/ELFObjectWriter.cpp(there was an comment said “e_machine=target”) and the other was tools/obj2yaml/elf2yaml.cpp(GDB stopped only at the

Hi vedant, 1. First, I think your theory is right that llvm’s object file reading libraries do not “understand” the architecture I’m working on. Since I’m using binutils as assembler which means llvm can only provide asm and object file is provided by biutils. I think these ELF header information is provided by my binutils now, so maybe I have to modify binutils code to provide ELF header

Hi all, I'm now working on llvm-cov for a new target and have a problem here. Because of some reasons, users do not stub in the main function and after running elf file, they cannot get a default profraw. Now they want to construct a default profraw manually but don't know how data is laid out in `default profraw` file. We found a struct ProfDataIOVec in InstrProfilingWriter.c in

To whom it may concern, I'm running some testcases(A and B) in Linux LLVM(built in Ubuntu16.04) and Windows LLVM(built by Visual Studio 2015), both of which were LLVM 4.0.0 and built with same source codes, but I got different assembly files(A_Linux != A_Windows, B_Linux = B_Windows). Privacy reasons prevent me from sharing my testcases here, sorry. I compared debug information and found the

To whom it may concern, Is there a way to build glibc with clang/llvm? I’m working on enabling llvm-cov for my compiler which is a totally new arch with a libc.a built from newlib. I successfully built compiler-rt but when I typed the command ` clang++ --target=xxx -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping foo.cc -o foo`, the linker failed because of undefined reference to

Hi. Actually from reading the README, it seems to imply that it can be built with Clang 6.0.0 and above now, though it does incorporate a lot of patches not specific to Clang building so you will end up with them as well: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- BUILDING GRTE WITH CLANG GRTE v5 and later can also be built with clang and (optionally) lld. LLVM

Hi Teresa, Thanks for the detailed reply! > How are you creating your bitcode files? I create the bitcode with `-flto=thin -c` and sure it has a GLOBALVAL_SUMMARY_BLOCK. And there’s no RegularLTO partition only ThinLTO bicode. > Where is it aborting in the backend? It aborts at ` report_fatal_error("Failed to setup codegen")` in of codegen() of LTOBackend.cpp. And before that in

Hi, I'm working on bringing up complete coverage for a Gentoo x32 "desktop" system. I've been cooking up quite a few patches for various packages to push upstream, but right now, the biggest blocker is the lack of support for building with/codegen targeting x32 in llvm/clang. Since the x32 patches were sent last year, I see support code has landed in LLVM, and basic handling of

Clang patch for X32 support. Applies against current trunk. --- ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td.orig 2013-05-16 21:51:51.286129820 +0000 +++ ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td 2013-05-16 21:53:24.875004239 +0000 @@ -841,6 +841,7 @@ HelpText<"Enable hexagon-qdsp6 backward compatibility">; def m3dnowa : Flag<["-"], "m3dnowa">,

Hello, I’m working on porting llvm to build for 65816, and I wanted to use a value of e_machine for this. I was wondering if there is a process for getting a value reserved. I’ve seen some information but its from many years ago, and seems to be well out of date? Just wanted to ask people who would likely know. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, > elfutils, and binutils. great! Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches? > diff --git a/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h b/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h > index 352fd8a..fb8ff71 100644 > ---

Hi, I'm working on enabling thinLTO for our custom backend on LLVM-8 with lld to get code size benefits from dead symbol elimination. The code in LTO::run() of LTO.cpp confuses me that, even though thinLTO is specified, runRegularLTO() will be run first and its return value determines whether runThinLTO() will be executed. My question is if it's clearly known that thinLTO is used, is it

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev >> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >>> elfutils, and binutils. >> >> great! >> Can

These two subclasses of X86TargetMachine are basically identical. The *only* thing that's different is the constructor. And that *only* differs in the is64Bit argument that it passes to the X86TargetMachine constructor. Replacing the hard-coded 'true' or 'false' with 'Triple(TT).getArch()==Triple::x86_64' makes them *actually* identical. Can we just ditch the

Hi all! It seems I came across on issue with coverage mapping (http://www.llvm.org/docs/CoverageMappingFormat.html) check on: llvm revision: r228136 clang Last Changed Rev: 228121 build: Debug+Asserts OS: ubuntu 14.04 Here is simple snippets test1.c: NOT OK ================== #include <stdio.h> static int foo() { return 42; } int main() { return 0; } ================== cp src/test1.c

Hi, Alexei On 2015/7/30 1:13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 7/29/15 2:38 AM, He Kuang wrote: >> Hi, Alexei >> >> On 2015/7/28 10:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On 7/25/15 3:04 AM, He Kuang wrote: >>>> I noticed that for 64-bit elf format, the reloc sections have >>>> 'Addend' in the entry, but there's no 'Addend' info

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

Eric, Attached are patches for llvm and clang that implement this. I've made 'none' a component that must be added explicitly (i.e. don't turn arm-eabi into arm--none-eabi, but rather turn it into arm--unknown-eabi) to try to reduce surprises. It also keeps the normalization logic a bit simpler than it would otherwise have to be. SPIR triples were one place where I was

Hi , I could see the LLVM code coverage info at the below links http://lab.llvm.org:8080/coverage/coverage-reports/clang/index.html http://llvm.org/reports/coverage/ I am interested in the branch coverage metric. I could not find the branch coverage related info . Can anyone let me know how to find it. If it is not available , I am happy to work on it, if I can get some details on why