similar to: [RFC] Generalize out-of-tree pass support

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: > >

Dear, LLVM developers. We appreciate your interest. We contacted to solve the problem of setting the pass. Our pass setup process is as follows: 1. Add pass subdirectory from CMakeLists.txt in llvm/lib/Tranform 2. Change CMakeLists.txt in llvm/lib/Transform/pass 3. Run make in llvm/build/lib However, the desired pass file was not created. There were no errors in the make process. Installed

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).

Hi, I'm working on an LLVM Pass plugin and I'm running into a problem when loading it into opt. I want to have a custom option for my pass and added an llvm::cl::opt #include'ing "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h" linking the dependant libs causes the following error when loading it with opt: opt: CommandLine Error: Option 'debug-pass' registered more than once! I

Hi Michael On Tue Nov 10, 2020 at 1:29 AM GMT, Michael Kruse wrote: > Am Mo., 2. Nov. 2020 um 14:01 Uhr schrieb David Blaikie > <dblaikie at gmail.com>: > > Hmm, not sure why the whole file was added only when MSVC support was added - if it is a "static library object file selection" issue. Wouldn't that have turned up on other platforms before that moment? >

Hi Philip, thanks for the quick answer. That makes sense, but when leaving the set LLVM_LINK_COMPONENTS out I get an undefined symbol when loading the plugin: _ZTVN4llvm2cl3optINSt7__cxx1112basic_stringIcSt11char_traitsIcESaIcEEELb0ENS0_6parserIS7_EEEE which boils down to llvm::cl::opt<std::__cxx11::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char>>,

Oh, right, this stuff. I guess the non-windows solution might've been a volatile read, for instance? So maybe not so much that the general machinery isn't needed, but that perhaps MSVC does something interesting with a volatile read or whatever other solution might've been used. Hmm, not sure why the whole file was added only when MSVC support was added - if it is a "static

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?

Being fully aware that llvmc2 is work-in-progress, here are some notes nethertheless: I already compiled llvm, but llvm-gcc was still compiling. Now I tried the new llvmc2: $ llvmc2 -opt -v main.c llvm-g++ -c -x c main.c -o /tmp/llvm_KeApik/main.bc -emit-llvm llvmc2: Can't find program 'llvm-g++' * after this, the directory /tmp/llvm_KeApik was not removed * why using /tmp at all?

I just built a stage-1 compiler from the 3.9 release bits and built the lldb from head sources which worked fine. Let me try again using 3.9 build compiler to build 3.9 bits. Teresa On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, 2:38 PM Carsten Mattner <carstenmattner at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On

Hi, In buildling XPS using LLVM's makefile system, I'm finding that there's a few things lacking in our support for LLVM-based projects. The items below should help but may require changes to project makefiles. I thought I'd check before just going and doing it. 1. Various autoconf generated variables (e.g. abs_top_srcdir) are set in the makefiles but not used. They

On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 20:53, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of > > autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like > > install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the > > projects rather than making the makefiles

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Reid Spencer wrote: > Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of > autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like > install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the > projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in > most cases these are just historical artifacts

I don't think NDEBUG is that easy. We use assert liberally[1] in templated code in headers. What about cast<>, which has assert(isa<...>...)? On ELF, you have an ODR problem, and you'll get either one or the other based on the whims of the dynamic linker. You could probably get things to the point that it sort of works, but I don't think we could support it without

The following is an older commandline i used. Have a more recent one at home. But basically you can write it as batch and trigger it within a target during the build(never got targets into correct order, i am a cmake noob) So for reference, i'll post this one and look for the recent one at home(if that didn't go down with my recent hdd crash): cmd /Q /V:ON /c "for /F

Hi all, I would like to rename LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY to LLVM_READONLY and LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_READNONE to LLVM_READNONE Any objections? - Daniel

What's the reason for renaming them? -bw On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to rename > LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_READONLY to LLVM_READONLY > and > LLVM_ATTRIBUTE_READNONE to LLVM_READNONE > > Any objections? > > - Daniel > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at

On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > What's the reason for renaming them? I can think of two things: 1) it being an attribute is an implementation detail 2) it being long makes it annoying to use :) -Chris > > -bw > > On Mar 8, 2012, at 4:57 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I would like to rename >>

On Thu, Mar 8, 2012 at 7:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 8, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> What's the reason for renaming them? > > I can think of two things: > > 1) it being an attribute is an implementation detail > 2) it being long makes it annoying to use :) Exactly. - Daniel > -Chris > >>

Also sprach Juan Nicolas Ruiz: } Is there a way get the register on the LHS of a llvm instruction? (in } case there is one) } } for example, given a "free %reg773", I want to find the matching } "%something = malloc %", where %something is not necessarily %reg773. } One way I found was to inmediately follow the use-def chain up from } the free to the malloc. But instead, I