On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:>>> There are obviously numerous ways we might use LLVM to aid development >>> of "bsdnt". I'll keep exploring those options. It sounds like, for the >>> time being, analysing existing code output and looking for ways to >>> improve it on certain arches is perhaps one way we may be of >>> assistance. >> >> Sounds like an interesting project. We're always happy to answer >> questions and add projects to the http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/ >> page. > > As soon as we decide whether we can actually do what we hope, and when > we actually have some code which is not imaginary, definitely I'll > announce it here in the hope of getting a plug. :-) > > Believe it or not, one of the critical issues for one of our devs is > Win64 support. I know that's not available at this point. If anyone > has any comments on that, it would be great to know what the plans > are, if any, for this.The only issue I know of is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5005 ; perhaps someone else knows more.> By the way, is it generally helpful if I post relevant C or IR > sequences here which do not optimise as one would hope/expect? I think > I have found some, but need to check....Sure; send a bunch in a single email, and I'll make sure to go through them. Likely some are already in Bugzilla and/or the various README.txt files (lib/Target/README.txt, lib/Target/X86/README.txt, etc.). -Eli
On 12 June 2010 03:24, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote:> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> There are obviously numerous ways we might use LLVM to aid development >>>> of "bsdnt". I'll keep exploring those options. It sounds like, for the >>>> time being, analysing existing code output and looking for ways to >>>> improve it on certain arches is perhaps one way we may be of >>>> assistance. >>> >>> Sounds like an interesting project. We're always happy to answer >>> questions and add projects to the http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/ >>> page. >> >> As soon as we decide whether we can actually do what we hope, and when >> we actually have some code which is not imaginary, definitely I'll >> announce it here in the hope of getting a plug. :-) >> >> Believe it or not, one of the critical issues for one of our devs is >> Win64 support. I know that's not available at this point. If anyone >> has any comments on that, it would be great to know what the plans >> are, if any, for this. > > The only issue I know of is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5005 > ; perhaps someone else knows more.Wait, you *do* support Win64? You seriously need to put this on your webpage!! It's not just me that missed this!!> >> By the way, is it generally helpful if I post relevant C or IR >> sequences here which do not optimise as one would hope/expect? I think >> I have found some, but need to check.... > > Sure; send a bunch in a single email, and I'll make sure to go through > them. Likely some are already in Bugzilla and/or the various > README.txt files (lib/Target/README.txt, lib/Target/X86/README.txt, > etc.).OK, will read those first (and save them up as I find them). Bill.> > -Eli >
On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:37 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote:> On 12 June 2010 03:24, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 7:09 PM, Bill Hart <goodwillhart at googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>> There are obviously numerous ways we might use LLVM to aid development >>>>> of "bsdnt". I'll keep exploring those options. It sounds like, for the >>>>> time being, analysing existing code output and looking for ways to >>>>> improve it on certain arches is perhaps one way we may be of >>>>> assistance. >>>> >>>> Sounds like an interesting project. We're always happy to answer >>>> questions and add projects to the http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/ >>>> page. >>> >>> As soon as we decide whether we can actually do what we hope, and when >>> we actually have some code which is not imaginary, definitely I'll >>> announce it here in the hope of getting a plug. :-) >>> >>> Believe it or not, one of the critical issues for one of our devs is >>> Win64 support. I know that's not available at this point. If anyone >>> has any comments on that, it would be great to know what the plans >>> are, if any, for this. >> >> The only issue I know of is http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5005 >> ; perhaps someone else knows more. > > Wait, you *do* support Win64? You seriously need to put this on your webpage!! > > It's not just me that missed this!!Support is in-progress. http://llvm.org/releases/2.7/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#portability is the set of architectures which have gone through release verification for the most recent release, and is a subset of usable architectures. Perhaps it would be appropriate to put a list of in-progress architectures somewhere. -Eli
Hello, I have a question regrading the analysis pass that generates loop info from an .ll code. My previous understanding was there will be just one loop header(in the loop info) for a particular loop. But, when i use isLoopHeader() member function from the loop info class I get 'true' return value for two different basic blocks. Note both basic blocks are loop conditional block(break condition of the loop), but only one starts the loop. Is this the right behavior for the isLoopHeader() member function? Thanks for help, Hisham