[cfe-dev] LLVM+Clang 3.3: clang: for the -vectorize-loops option: may only occur zero or one times!

[Matthieu Monrocq]

Hi,

It seems to me that the CompilerEngine is not reentrant, either by design
or by mistake (the latter seems more likely).

I think that a reset of the count is missing from the initialization when
you call compileCode(), and thus the second time it (incorrectly) diagnose
that you are trying to pass the option a second time, not realizing it is a
different run.

-- Matthieu



On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Alan Garny <agarny at hellix.com> wrote:

> Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> My application generates some C code which I then compile using LLVM+Clang
> before running it. For the compilation side of things, I have a class which
> one of the methods (the CompilerEngine::compileCode() method in
> https://raw.github.com/opencor/opencor/llvm_3.3/src/plugins/misc/Compiler/src/compilerengine.cpp)
> is based on the code from the clang-interpreter example (
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/examples/clang-interpreter/main.cpp?view=co).
> The idea is therefore to create an instance of the ‘compiler’ class and,
> among other things, use its compileCode() whenever needed.****
>
> ** **
>
> All of this works perfectly fine using LLVM+Clang 3.2, but not with
> LLVM+Clang 3.3. At least, not out of the box. Basically, the first time I
> try to compile some C code, everything is fine. However, if I try to
> compile some other C code, then I will get the following error message:***
> *
>
> ** **
>
> clang: for the -vectorize-loops option: may only occur zero or one times!
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> FWIW, I use the -O3 option which I understand makes implicit use of the
> loop vectorizer, and that seems to be the problem. Indeed, if I disable the
> loop vectorizer (using the -fno-vectorize option), then everything is fine
> but I clearly don’t want to have to do that. So, right now, my solution
> consists of commenting out the test for the number of option occurrences in
> the Option::addOccurrence() method (
> http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Support/CommandLine.cpp?view=co),
> but it is clearly not satisfactory either (even though it’s good enough for
> my particular purpose).****
>
> ** **
>
> So, would anyone have any idea about what I might be missing, if
> anything?... ****
>
> ** **
>
> Cheers, Alan.****
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130620/f4420b60/attachment.html>