On Thu, Dec 23, 2004 at 06:42:02AM +0100, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote:> with the small patch attached below the whole llvm toolchain (llvm & > llvm-gcc) will compile and run under AMD64 Linux in native 64-bit LP64 > mode.Sounds great! I'll add it to the list of supported platforms.> This means that compilation, bytecode management and CWriter output > all work as expected. Of course there is no JIT, and the bytecode > interpreter is still very much untested - more patches may follow.The bytecode interpreter is untested on many platforms -- part of the reason is that it's very, very slow to run on reasonable programs. If you want to work on something, getting LLC to produce AMD64 code would be the first step, and getting the JIT to work would be the second. I am assuming native 32-bit binaries will run, just slower, so this is an "optimization". :) However, working on the interpreter is largely a waste of your time. The interpreter structure itself is due for a rewrite, see item #8 of http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/OpenProjects.html#misc_new -- Misha Brukman :: http://misha.brukman.net :: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 22:40, Misha Brukman wrote:> If you want to work on something, getting LLC to produce AMD64 code > would be the first step, and getting the JIT to work would be the > second. I am assuming native 32-bit binaries will run, just slower, so > this is an "optimization". :)I believe x86 BE is due for "sub-target" support to handle variations in the 386, 486, 586, ... instruction sets. Could amd64 be thought of this way? Or, is it different enough that its a new target? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20041223/63d4adf0/attachment.sig>
If by AMD64 you mean true 64-bit mode instruction set, I'd say it's different enough to warrant a new target. The differences between 386/486/586/etc are very minor in comparison. Reid Spencer wrote:>On Wed, 2004-12-22 at 22:40, Misha Brukman wrote: > > >>If you want to work on something, getting LLC to produce AMD64 code >>would be the first step, and getting the JIT to work would be the >>second. I am assuming native 32-bit binaries will run, just slower, so >>this is an "optimization". :) >> >> > >I believe x86 BE is due for "sub-target" support to handle variations in >the 386, 486, 586, ... instruction sets. Could amd64 be thought of this >way? Or, is it different enough that its a new target? > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >LLVM Developers mailing list >LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >http://mail.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > >