Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "061567".
2013 Aug 01
0
[LLVMdev] PNaCl Bitcode reference manual
Hi Eli,
Recently, I proposed some changes to LLVM to do more lowering of illegal
types (like i128 or i17) and other things within the LLVM IR layer, and the
proposal was roundly rejected by the LLVM community:
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/061567.html
PNaCl is essentially doing what my proposal described. How do you expect to
reconcile the community's desire to avoid doing lowering on LLVM IR with
PNaCl's design that is built on doing lowering on LLVM IR?
Dan
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 3:11 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.co...
2013 Jul 30
5
[LLVMdev] PNaCl Bitcode reference manual
Hello,
Following an earlier email (
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-June/063010.html), we've
published an initial version of the PNaCl bitcode reference manual online -
http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl/bitcode-abi. The PNaCl bitcode
is a restricted subset of LLVM IR.
The reference manual is quite terse, so for the bigger picture I'll repost
links to the design
2013 Aug 09
0
[LLVMdev] [global-isel] Random comments on Proposal for a global instruction selector
...ot of community feedback, and I don't expect we'll have a final design before we actually begin implementing it.
>
> Why not legalize LLVM IR?
>
> It's been proposed to legalize LLVM IR before instruction selection, see http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/061567.html. I recommend reading the mailing list thread debating the proposal, but let me summarize the reasons for legalizing MI instead of LLVM IR:
>
> • ABI boundaries have a too high-level representation in LLVM IR. By ABI boundaries, I mean function call and return, landing pads, and inline...
2013 Aug 08
14
[LLVMdev] [global-isel] Proposal for a global instruction selector
...I am hoping for a lot of community feedback, and I don't expect we'll have a final design before we actually begin implementing it.
Why not legalize LLVM IR?
It's been proposed to legalize LLVM IR before instruction selection, see http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2013-April/061567.html. I recommend reading the mailing list thread debating the proposal, but let me summarize the reasons for legalizing MI instead of LLVM IR:
ABI boundaries have a too high-level representation in LLVM IR. By ABI boundaries, I mean function call and return, landing pads, and inline assembly.
LL...