llvm

The Online LLVM demo page had an option to generate LLVM C++ API code as backend from a source code. However, that demo page is now disabled. I was wondering how we can do it ourselves using the available LLVM tools. I tried the following clang++ -c -emit-llvm input.cpp -o input.ll llc -march=cpp -o input.ll.cpp input.ll which gives the following error llc: error: invalid target 'cpp'. I am using LLVM/Clang version 3.2. Eli Bendersky The LLVM C++ backend has to be enabled during configuration when building LLVM. It's enabled by default in the configure (autotools) build, but not in the CMake

From clang's C++11 support status website, http://clang.llvm.org/cxx_status.html , it says, "Initializer List" and "Lambda Expression" are all supported starting from version 3.1. However, using LLVM/Clang trunk (3.2), compiling against initializer list and lambda expression will yield error messages. Does anyone know if Clang >3.1 supports those features? By default, clang++ will not enable the C++11 features - you have to pass an additional flag during compilation . clang++ -std=c++11 [input files...] Or # enables some additional C++11 extensions GCC has clang++ -std=gnu++11 [input files...]

I've got a few languages I've been building as interpreters. When I'm ready to take "that next step", what options are best for non-native compiled formats... what are the pros and cons of each? I've been looking at compiling to CLR or LLVM, and contemplated C-midcompile a few times, but I'm not completely certain. A few features I'm hoping to be able to port are as follows: REPL - One of the languages I'm building supports block-level evaluation during runtime. Robust Macros - One of the languages I'm building requires the ability to filter through code seperately before tokenizing, and in

I have no experience with llvm or clang, yet. From what I read clang is said to be easily embeddable Wikipedia-Clang , however, I did not find any tutorials about how to achieve this. So is it possible to provide the user of a c++ application with scripting-powers by JIT compiling and executing user-defined code at runtime? Would it be possible to call the applications own classes and methods and share objects? edit: I'd prefer a C-like syntax for the script-languge (or even C++ itself) I don't know of any tutorial, but there is an example C interpreter in the Clang source that might be

The official LLVM 4.0 build for Windows integrates with Visual Studio up to Visual Studio 2015. Unfortunately it still doesn't support Visual Studio 2017. When you try to set the Platform Toolset of a project to LLVM-vs2014 , it pops up an error. Do you know any way to make it work? Update In 2018, LLVM 6.0 officially still doesn't support integration with Visual Studio 2017 (version 15.X.X), only with the Visual Studio 2015 (version 14.X.X) toolset. It requires some msbuild targets that only ship with the C++ v140 toolset, and VS 2017 only installs the v141 toolset by default. If you open the

The operands for an llvm::User (e.g. instruction) are llvm::Value s. After the mem2reg pass, variables are in SSA form , and their names as corresponding to the original source code are lost. Value::getName() is only set for some things; for most variables, which are intermediaries, its not set. The instnamer pass can be run to give all the variables names like tmp1 and tmp2 , but this doesn't capture where they originally come from. Here's some LLVM IR beside the original C code: I am building a simple html page to visualise and debug some optimisations I am working on, and I want to show the

In latest iOS SDK, Apple provides three compiler options: GCC, LLVM with Clang and LLVM-GCC. I understand more or less what these 3 mean, what LLVM and Clang are, and so on. What I don't know is what this means in practice for iPhone developers. Which of these should I use at this point, as of January 2011? Is LLVM mature enough that I can use it safely without stumbling on bugs in it too often? Does switching to LLVM have any other disadvantages? If it does, then does the speed advantage outweigh them? Are there any other reasons to switch except speed? Update: Because people are still

I've been playing with clang a while, and I stumbled upon "test/SemaTemplate/dependent-template-recover.cpp" (in the clang distribution) which is supposed to provide hints to recover from a template error. The whole thing can be easily stripped down to a minimal example: template<typename T, typename U, int N> struct X { void f(T* t) { // expected-error{{use 'template' keyword to treat 'f0' as a dependent template name}} t->f0<U>(); } }; The error message yielded by clang: tpl.cpp:6:13: error: use 'template' keyword to treat 'f0' as a dependent template name t->f0<U>(); ^ template 1 error