similar to: New PM, opt and command line options

Hello Fedor. Thank you for the information. I made a simple patch that exposes PassInstrumentationCallback so llvmGetPassPluginInfo can use it: https://reviews.llvm.org/D71086 . Would this change make sense? Thanks, Juneyoung Lee On Thu, Dec 12, 2019 at 12:44 AM Fedor Sergeev <fedor.sergeev at azul.com> wrote: > > > On 12/3/19 8:01 PM, Juneyoung Lee via llvm-dev wrote: > >

Iulia, You need to check the contents of the hello.ll (or hello.bc) file rather than the input *.c file - ultimately that's what opt consumes. Try compiling without any optimisations: clang -O0 -emit-llvm -S hello.c -c -o hello.ll -Andrzej On 18/09/2019 11:34, iulia_s24 wrote: > Hi, > > Actually I copy-pasted step 5 from the article in which I found the > solution, in the text

Hello all, Is there a way to register callback that runs before/after passes? PassTimingInfo seems to do a similar thing by calling PassInstrumentationCallbacks::registerBeforePassCallback / registerAfterPassCallback, but it is hard-wired with StandardInstrumentations class. Do we have something similar to RegisterStandardPasses, so custom callbacks can be added from somewhere outside LLVM?

For those of us not familiar with clang internals, it would be helpful if you could describe the parts of clang that you're considering sharing and explain what existing code they would replace in flang (if any) and what benefits we gain by sharing them. In particular, these were mentioned previously: DiagnosticsEngine, SourceManager, SourceLocation, FileManager, VFS Thanks, Tim On

On 6/11/20 4:04 PM, James Y Knight wrote: > I think the expectation is that LLVM remains at the bottom of the > dependency tree, with frontend-support depending on LLVM, and Clang and > Flang depending on frontend-support (and LLVM). > > Not everything which makes sense to share between clang and flang makes > sense to be part of llvm core. E.g., implementation of a

Hi folks, I've been working for a few months on a proposal to make it easier to develop out-of-tree passes, and have them linked either statically or dynamically, within LLVM. This includes automatic integration within clang, opt and bugpoint. The goal is to lower the bar for people who develop out-of tree passes: they can maintain their code base in a third-party repo, pick it at config

Andrzej, On 7/14/19 8:02 AM, Andrzej Warzynski wrote: > This is still very early stages, but you can be my guinea pig: > > https://github.com/banach-space/llvm-tutor > > It's a tutorial that I've been preparing recently and am hoping to > present somewhere at some point :-) I believe that it already covers 1), > 2) and 3). I haven't had the time to work on 4).

On 6/11/20 3:32 AM, Andrzej Warzynski wrote: > > > On 11/06/2020 00:49, Michael Kruse wrote: >> Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via >> flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >>> I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing >>> llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from

Hi Paula, This error is fine. The buildbot has tested the worker version. 0.8.x apparently does not have that method. The error gets handled gracefully on the server side. At least it seems so so far. That should not prevent your bot from connecting. Thanks Galina On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:11 PM Paula Askar <paulatoth at google.com> wrote: > Hey Andrzej, > > What are you seeing

Nick, While enhancing the fink llvm32 packaging to support the polly tool, I ran into a dyld failure when the dragonegg plugin tries to load LLVMPolly.so plugin... dyld: lazy symbol binding failed: fast lazy bind offset out of range (39257, max=7640) in image /sw/lib/gcc4.7/libexec/gcc/x86_64-apple-darwin11.4.2/4.7.2/cc1 dyld: fast lazy bind offset out of range (39257, max=7640) in image

Our Flang-aarch64 buildbots just won't connect to the main Buildbot master anymore. I switched them to the staging buildbot master instead and it seems fine for now. Is there anything that we can/should tweak at our end? http://lab.llvm.org:8014/#/waterfall?tags=flang -Andrzej On 08/10/2020 00:31, Galina Kistanova via cfe-dev wrote: > They are online now -

Hi, Could you please confirm the following steps for debugging a pass? 1. copy your pass into llvm/lib/Transforms/Hello/Hello.cpp 2. name you pass Hello 3. insert debug messages like:     errs() << "Vis­iting func­tion " << F.get­Name(); 4. get LLVM bitcode:    clang -O3 -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc5. disassemble the bitcode:     llvm-dis hel­lo.bc 6. run the pass on

*TL;DR* We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable further work on Flang driver. *SUMMARY* We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by non-C-based languages to LLVM. From our initial investigation we see that these

Am Mi., 10. Juni 2020 um 10:04 Uhr schrieb Doerfert, Johannes via flang-dev <flang-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > I'm not against a subproject *but* if we also move the existing > llvm/lib/Frontend stuff, that would introduce a dependence from > llvm-core to this project, which I think is uncommon. We could also have > both. At the end of the day it depends on the benefit we would

On Sun, Oct 21, 2012 at 06:00:36PM -0700, Nick Kledzik wrote: > Jack, > > Some binary has an initializer which dyld is calling. Somehow the initializer gets to: > #4 0x0000000100f3b2c0 in Json::Value::maxUInt () > which is calling a function in another dylib for the first time. When you call a function in another dylib, you actually jump through a (lazy) pointer. The pointer

Jack, Some binary has an initializer which dyld is calling. Somehow the initializer gets to: #4 0x0000000100f3b2c0 in Json::Value::maxUInt () which is calling a function in another dylib for the first time. When you call a function in another dylib, you actually jump through a (lazy) pointer. The pointer initially points to a helper which loads an index parameter specifying which function to

Hey: I spent sometime debugging this, it seems like editing ``llvm/tools/opt.cpp`` and move ``cl::ParseCommandLineOptions(argc, argv, "llvm .bc -> .bc modular optimizer and analysis printer\n");`` to the beginning of main() solved it for me. I'm not sure if this is a bug on LLVM side Zhang ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Viktor Was BSc via

Florian, On 7/10/19 2:17 PM, Florian Hahn wrote: > http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~asampson/blog/llvm.html describes how to > create an out-of-source pass (see 'Let’s Write a Pass’). I think it > is for LLVM 3.8 though. Thanks for pointing that out. I had actually recently stumbled across that page (and the GitHub repository it references, https://github.com/sampsyo/llvm-pass-skeleton)

The fundamental problem here is that opt doesn’t use ExecutionEngine (because it has no need to), so trying to use ExecutionEngine (or any other bit of llvm that opt doesn’t use for that matter) in an opt plugin isn’t going to work. The solution I’d go with would be to build llvm with shared libraries (use –DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON on the cmake command) then link the plugin against ExecutionEngine.

On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:57 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > Nick, > Can I do this without access to a debug version of dyld? Using the copy of LLVMPolly.so with isl/cloog-isl/gmp statically linked, > I find that if I set the breakpoint to the address of the initializer... > > dyld: calling initializer function 0x100ebb3a0 in /sw/opt/llvm-3.2/lib/LLVMPolly.so > dyld: lazy symbol binding