similar to: Compiling for AArch64: CommandLine Error: Option 'aarch64-branch-relax' registered more than once!

Kai Nacke via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > Compiling for AArch64: CommandLine Error: Option > 'aarch64-branch-relax' registered more than once! > > Hi all! > > I am trying to run LDC (LLVM-based D compiler) on AArch64. The > compiler contains all IR and target specific passes. You can view it > as combined llc/opt tool. It uses the same

Hello, While trying to find out why the LDC compiler refuses to generate object code for MSP430 targets (but generates MSP430 assembly or LLVM IR/bitcode), I came across the following apparent inconsistency. This works: $ clang --target=msp430 -c test.c This doesn't work: $ clang --target=msp430 -S -emit-llvm test.c $ llc -filetype=obj test.ll /opt/msp430/bin/llc: target does not support

> Tim: does it make sense to just remove this flag? Might well do (and a bunch of the other parametrization flags in there that look like they might even date from when the ISA was up in the air), but I doubt it would fix the issue. aarch64-branch-relax looks very suspiciously like it would be at the beginning of any alphabetical sort of options. I suspect there's some weird DLL name

Dear All, Recently, I wanted to reinstall a fresh copy of llvm for a new project I am working on. However I ran into the following issue when attempting to build a vanilla copy. CommandLine Error: Option 'mc-relax-all' registered more than once! LLVM ERROR: inconsistency in registered CommandLine options make[2]: ***

Thanks for your quick reply. I have also tried disabling build shared libs, specifying via "-DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=OFF" in my cmake config line However I am getting the same exact error with this flag specified as well. Just an idea, would removing all llvm/clang instances/libs on my machine work? Do you know what the default location is of these shared/static llvm libraries that are

In summary we have no less than six patches required to support Win64 SEH MinGW. The first five could be committed after review and LGTM but the last one also requires Ray Donnelly approval. Please comment in the Phabricator so the comments would be kept in context. 'unreachable' trap http://reviews.llvm.org/D3417 Win64 SEH (LLVM) http://reviews.llvm.org/D3418 Win64 SEH (clang)

Hi! I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need updates: On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry "LLVM D Compiler" in section "Open Source Projects" with: <tr> <td><a href="http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC/">

Hi Rafael, is there a repository with the static pages or should I simply produce a diff between the 2 versions? Regards, Kai On 03.12.2013 14:30, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Can you send a patch? > > On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC >> compiler.

Can you send a patch? On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC > compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need > updates: > > On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry > "LLVM D Compiler" in section

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 1:35 AM, Nicholas Wilson < iamthewilsonator at hotmail.com> wrote: > Luís, try using the -no-integrated-as flag to execute the assembler for > you. > We should probably make that the default for MSP430. > Cool. When I did that on macOS, LDC generated a lot of complaints, possibly because it is assuming mach-o files. I tried changing from -mtriple=msp430

> Hi all, > > We have a Samba AD DC service running on Ubuntu 16.0.4 with Samba > 4.3.11. We are planning to upgrade it to a recent version, probably > 4.8.3. > > I think that I have two options: > > a) Package upgrade via 3rd party repositories (Louis Van Belle's repo) > by following wiki. > > b) A fresh install of 4.8.3 on another VM then join it to

Can you clarify what you mean by "real SEH handling"? My company has me looking at this in the hopes that I can make LLVM capable of building windows drivers. If you mean "visual c++ style SEH", I'm fairly sure that isn't necessary for my purposes, but it would be nice. If you mean "something that works at all," then your concern about generalizing LLVM

Hi all, In my MSVC-compiled project I am using MCJIT to run some generated code. I faced that in case of Win64 ('x86_64-pc-win32-elf') __try/__except block doesn't work - the stack can not be unwound. I have found that the only way to fix it is implementing my own *registerEHFrames* function of the Memory Manager (but I'm not sure this helps). Maybe someone had a success solving

Hi! I am still working on the Win64 EH code and now have a pretty usable result. (The MC part is already posted to llvm-commits, the other part follows soon. If you are curious the whole patch is here: http://www.redstar.de/ldc/win64eh_all_20130524.diff.) However, in one case I have a problem with LLVM being too smart. Consider the following D code: void doIt() { printf("doIt:

Sorry in advance for the stupid question, i still don’t understand some concepts like passes. I took a piece of code from llc, and I used it to write a function that creates an object (or assembly) file from an IR module. It compiles without any problems. But program crashes when it reaches add() method of the pass manager. Can you help me figuring out what’s the problem please? here is my

Hello everyone, I just thought I would let people here know that ldc (llvm backend for the D Programming Language) is getting pretty usable (a few larger libraries compile) and it now has x86-64 support added. I decided to run some timings on some D and C++ code to compare ldc to dmd (the mainline compiler), gdc (the gcc based D compiler) and g++. I used a ray tracing program found in this

On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Kelly W wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I just thought I would let people here know that ldc (llvm backend > for the D Programming Language) is getting pretty usable (a few > larger libraries compile) and it now has x86-64 support added. I > decided to run some timings on some D and C++ code to compare ldc to > dmd (the mainline compiler),

At the moment llvm-config outputs "2.6svn" if llvm is build from trunk $ llvm-config --version 2.6svn Some external projects (built out-of-tree) need to know which revision of llvm is installed. LDC currently asks llvm-config --src-root for the source directory and then parses svn info's output to get the revision number. This requires the user to keep the llvm source tree

The stack trace: llvm::PMTopLevelManager::addImmutablePass(llvm::ImmutablePass*) llvm::PMTopLevelManager::schedulePass(llvm::Pass*) moduleToObjectFile(llvm::Module*,std::string&,llvm::LLVMContext&) Sometimes it doesn't crash because TargetRegistry::lookupTarget() returns an error which says it doesn't support the current target > On Mar 24, 2016, at 1:14 AM, Mehdi Amini

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 July 2017 at 17:51, Luís Marques via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Cool. When I did that on macOS, LDC generated a lot of complaints, > possibly > > because it is assuming mach-o files. I tried changing from > -mtriple=msp430 > > to