search for: jmartinez

...Javier On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 08:33:44 -0500, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't see why. Your compiler would just do a declare and then a > call, and your runtime function gets called. > > On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Javier Martinez<javier at jmartinez.org> > wrote: >> Hi Daniel, >> >> Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, your suggestion is to >> have >> the backend call a library that handles the built-in functions. Would the >> calls need to be lowered and redirected (e.g. by a big switch st...

...balMapping), and then JIT whatever needs to call it. Obviously, it won't get inlined if you do that.) One of the standard opt passes should inline the first group for you if you mark your function with the alwaysinline attribute. On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Javier Martinez<javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > The issue is that there is no runtime function. I'm not sure we're in the > same page but just in case we aren't I'm trying to provide support for > built-in functions at compilation time. Some functions can be expressed in > LLVM and others only in the...

I've just upgraded the version of Samba we're running from 2.2.2 to 3.0.2a and am seeing an issue with permissions on directories. Users can still map the shares that are set up, but cannot access the directories within those shares. This is also not consistent; it's not happening to all users. Our environment: Samba 3.0.2a Domain Authentication to a Win2K server No Winbind Solaris

...ntime library (e.g., > libgcc). > > While it isn't currently completely wired up, we do have our own > compiler runtime library available under the compiler-rt project in > the LLVM repo. > > - Daniel > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Javier Martinez<javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to add support in my back end for certain functions that are >> seen as built-in by the target. Some of these functions can be >> implemented in a) LLVM, and some in b) the native target language. >> >> M...

I don't see why. Your compiler would just do a declare and then a call, and your runtime function gets called. On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:13 AM, Javier Martinez<javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for the reply. If I understand correctly, your suggestion is to have > the backend call a library that handles the built-in functions. Would the > calls need to be lowered and redirected (e.g. by a big switch statement or a > jump table) to t...

Hello, I'm having trouble getting LLVM to use UMUL_LOHI instead of MUL for unsigned integers. In the TargetLowering constructor I have: setOperationAction(ISD::MUL, MVT::i32, Expand); setOperationAction(ISD::SMUL_LOHI, MVT::i32, Legal); setOperationAction(ISD::UMUL_LOHI, MVT::i32, Legal); The problem seems to be with the code in LegalizeOp() in LegalizeDAG.cpp. Here's a snipet of

...is ok because that same user can log into another machine with no problem. Clients are Windows 2000 and Windows XP. PDC Operating system is Red Hat Enterprise ES 3.0. Can anyone PLEASE assist here! Thank you in advance. Jose ******************************* Jose V. Martinez II 678-859-5339 jmartinez@bellsouth.net

...cally emit a call the the compiler's runtime library (e.g., libgcc). While it isn't currently completely wired up, we do have our own compiler runtime library available under the compiler-rt project in the LLVM repo. - Daniel On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Javier Martinez<javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm trying to add support in my back end for certain functions that are > seen as built-in by the target. Some of these functions can be > implemented in a) LLVM, and some in b) the native target language. > > My approach to case a) is to write the...

On Mon, Nov 30, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using > LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers > wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit > shift decomposit...

Hi, I'm trying to add support in my back end for certain functions that are seen as built-in by the target. Some of these functions can be implemented in a) LLVM, and some in b) the native target language. My approach to case a) is to write the built-in function implementation in C, compile it to LLVM using Clang, link it to the module that uses it and finally add a pass to inline it.

...s Eli. I didn't know that the operand sign didn't affect the operation as I've never done multiplication at the bit level. Javier On Tue, 8 Dec 2009 20:16:23 -0800, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> > wrote: >> Eli, >> >> I think it is an error for LLVM to select ISD::SMUL_LOHI for UNSIGNED >> integers; isn't it? > > The LLVM mul instruction isn't fundamentally signed or unsigned. For a > 64 * 64 -> 64 multiply, it's perfectly legitim...

I forgot to forward to the rest of the list... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] NaNs and Infinities Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 23:41:43 -0700 From: Javier Martinez <javier at jmartinez.org> To: lost <lostfreeman at gmail.com> Hi, If it's an immediate you can cast the SDValue to a ConstantFP and use the isNaN() or isInfinity() member functions (see below). For non immediates you can use bitcasting to convert the float to an integer. If bits 0-22 are 0 and bits 23...

I am running samba (2.2.7a) on a solaris box on a network seperate from our windows clients. (different subnet) We have a mix of Win2k and winXP clients that are connecting to it. I recently upgraded from NT 4.0 domains to active directory on Win2K servers, and I would like to completely do away with netbios and WINS. The problem is getting clients to connect to the samba server. I have

Hi Evan, Thanks for the useful pointer. When trying to implement the example to my situation I ran into a strange issue that I don't know how to resolve. My target doesn't support 64-bit operations and so far all operations have been expanded using LLVM except for division and remainder. For division, LLVM only gives you the option of either calling an external library or custom lowering

Hello, I'm working in adding support for 64-bit integers to my target. I'm using LLVM to decompose the 64-bit integer operations by using 32-bit registers wherever possible and emulating support where not. When looking at the bit shift decomposition I saw what seems to be a bug in the implementation. The affected function is ExpandShiftWithUnknownAmountBit in LegalizeIntegerTypes.cpp.

Migrating a working Samba 2.2.8a Domain Controller to 3.0.2a Using smbpasswd file compiled using gcc 3.2.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Used working 2.2.8 configuration ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- #authentication as PDC workgroup = XNET domain logons = yes domain master = yes

I'm at my wits end here so hopefully someone can help me. Currently I have a Redhat 9.0 box running Samba 2.2.7 with openldap 2.0.27 as a PDC Domain logins work great with this setup. I can add, remove, modify computers and users all day long without a glitch. I do not store usernames in the local smbpasswd or passwd files. User information is stored in ou=Users,dc=mydomain,dc=com Group

Hi Duncan, Just wondering if you had a chance to look at the expansion. Thanks, Javier On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:20:14 +0100, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Javier, > >> It seems that the code you pasted came from the function >> ExpandShiftByConstant and indeed it looks correct. In my example I used 6 >> as the shift amount but forgot to mention that

Hi Duncan, Maybe I'm beating a dead horse but I wanted to see if understood correctly your optimization to avoid doing a subtraction. The way I understand it the idea is to mask out the high bits of Amt which in some cases is equivalent to subtracting a value from Amt. The cases where this holds is when the value subtracted from Amt is a power of two. This value is half the original register

Hi Jochen, I just wanted to point out that if x = inf the result of x * 0 is in indeterminate form so reducing it to zero would give the wrong result in that case. Thanks, Javier On 3/3/2010 8:56 AM, Jochen Wilhelmy wrote: > Hi! > > > >> sin/cos etc should already be handled by lib/Analysis/ConstantFolding.cpp. >> >> > Thanks for the hint and it