Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> writes:>> There's a big reason to keep it. It's a godsend when trying to bugpoint >> something where no working llc is available. I've used it quite a lot >> during AVX development, for example. It's useful for developing any >> new target. > > an alternative is to make the interpreter more powerful and have bugpoint > use it rather than the C backend.That would actually be better. I've never tried the interpreter. Do you have a sense of what's needed to make it more powerful? -Dave
On 11/15/10 11:17 AM, David A. Greene wrote:> Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> writes: > >>> There's a big reason to keep it. It's a godsend when trying to bugpoint >>> something where no working llc is available. I've used it quite a lot >>> during AVX development, for example. It's useful for developing any >>> new target. >> an alternative is to make the interpreter more powerful and have bugpoint >> use it rather than the C backend. > That would actually be better. I've never tried the interpreter. Do > you have a sense of what's needed to make it more powerful?Are you sure that this is a good idea? The interpreter (if it is made to work) will probably be much, much slower than the C backend. Since both the interpreter and the CBE need some love and care to work again, it may be better to exert effort on the CBE. -- John T.> -Dave > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
On Nov 15, 2010, at 9:22 AM, John Criswell wrote:> On 11/15/10 11:17 AM, David A. Greene wrote: >> Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> writes: >> >>>> There's a big reason to keep it. It's a godsend when trying to bugpoint >>>> something where no working llc is available. I've used it quite a lot >>>> during AVX development, for example. It's useful for developing any >>>> new target. >>> an alternative is to make the interpreter more powerful and have bugpoint >>> use it rather than the C backend. >> That would actually be better. I've never tried the interpreter. Do >> you have a sense of what's needed to make it more powerful? > > Are you sure that this is a good idea? The interpreter (if it is made > to work) will probably be much, much slower than the C backend. > > Since both the interpreter and the CBE need some love and care to work > again, it may be better to exert effort on the CBE.If anyone was really interested in this, I'd strongly suggest a complete rewrite of the C backend: make use the existing target independent code generator code (for legalization etc) and then just put out a weird ".s file" at the end. -Chris