search for: artjom

...to do that at the selection level? If yes, could you give a simple example or some hint how it would be done? I only find examples where exactly one instruction is emitted (and/or returned). Do you think it's the right approach or is there a better place? I'd really appreciate your help. Artjom Kochtchi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Selection-of-multiple-instructions-tp24395706p24395706.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Does the error function *have* to be auto-generated in your pass? Perhaps the original code should use invokes, and your pass insert the error check with a jne to the "unwind" block. On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Artjom Kochtchi<artjom.kochtchi at googlemail.com> wrote: > > > Dan Gohman-2 wrote: >> >> You don't need a ModulePass to modify a CFG. A MachineFunctionPass >> is fine for this. >> > Well, okay. But I need to insert some BasicBlock that contains the error >...

Dan Gohman-2 wrote: > > You don't need a ModulePass to modify a CFG. A MachineFunctionPass > is fine for this. > Well, okay. But I need to insert some BasicBlock that contains the error handling (that the runtime check jumpts to on failure). Just putting another MachineBasicBlock at the beginning of some arbitrary MachineFunction doesn't seem to be the right way to go, does

...no use to replicate it at every call. So I was searching for a possibility to include an additional (Machine)BasicBlock (or rather a MachineFunction?) somewhere in the program that contains the program termination and that I can jump to on check failure. Can't I do that during a Pass in llc? -Artjom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/code-altering-Passes-for-llc-tp24778261p24845838.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Jul 8, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm currently trying to modify LLVM to include runtime checks into X86 > binaries. I've looked into some of the possibilities during the phases > happening in LLVM and have the impression that inserting runtime > checks > during selecti...

...deOperands(llvm::SDValue, llvm::SDValue, llvm::SDValue): Assertion `N->getNumOperands() == 2 && "Update with wrong number of operands"' failed. Omiting the target register or switching operand order seems not to change anything. I'd really appreciate your help on this. Artjom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Inserting-nodes-into-SelectionDAG-%28X86%29-tp24211066p24218876.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...n in ISD? I can't find it... 4) Do I get the parameter passing right? Fooling around with other expressions suggests that I get it wrong. 5) What exactly is the meaning of further result types? If I get the new Chain object back, are the other results inside? Could you help me out? Sincerely, Artjom Kochtchi -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Inserting-nodes-into-SelectionDAG-%28X86%29-tp24211066p24211066.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Jun 26, 2009, at 4:49 AM, Artjom K. wrote: > > Thank you for your help. > > I think I managed to create the instruction I wanted: > > // mov eax, 41 > Chain = DAG.getCopyToReg(Chain, DAG.getRegister(X86::EAX, MVT::i32), > DAG.getConstant(41, MVT::i32), InFlag); > InFlag = Chain.getValue(1); > >...

On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:45 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > So I was searching for a possibility to include an additional > (Machine)BasicBlock (or rather a MachineFunction?) somewhere in the > program > that contains the program termination and that I can jump to on check > failure. Can't I do that during a Pass in l...

...wrong number of operands: Ops.push_back(Chain); Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegister(X86::EAX, MVT::i32)); Ops.push_back(DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); Chain = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, DAG.getVTList(MVT::Other, MVT::i32), &Ops[0], Ops.size()); Isn't that the way how it is supposed to work? Artjom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Inserting-nodes-into-SelectionDAG-%28X86%29-tp24211066p24256897.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...nstruction wont be interpreted as a memory location (but as a constant). 4) The ISD::BR_CC instruction requires to be passed a MachineBasicBlock. Obviously, the uninitialized pointer in my example won't work. Is there any way to access any MBB in the Program from X86ISelLowering::LowerCALL? - Artjom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Inserting-nodes-into-SelectionDAG-%28X86%29-tp24211066p24328767.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

...ction changes control flow, so the CFG is not up to date after the pass. Do I set AnalysisUsage in getAnalysisUsage to preserve nothing? In that case, is the CFG updated automatically by LLVM or do I need to apply the changes during the Pass not only the the MachineFunction, but also the the CFG? -Artjom -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/code-altering-Passes-for-llc-tp24778261p24778261.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On Jul 1, 2009, at 2:22 PMPDT, Dan Gohman wrote: >> Ops.push_back(DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); >> Chain = DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD, DAG.getVTList(MVT::Other, MVT::i32), >> &Ops[0], Ops.size()); >> >> Isn't that the way how it is supposed to work? > > ADD does not use a chain, so there's no chain operand, or > MVT::Other result for it in an ADD

On Jun 25, 2009, at 2:05 PM, Artjom K. wrote: > > Greetings, > > I am rather new to LLVM, so please excuse my limited knowledge about > it. > > Currently I am trying to modify the X86TargetLowering::LowerCALL > method by > inserting additional instructions before the call. > As far as I understand,...

On Jun 29, 2009, at 9:00 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > > Sorry to ask again, but I still can't get it right. > > The following code compiles and runs, but produces no instructions: > Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegister(X86::EAX, MVT::i32)); > Ops.push_back(DAG.getConstant(1, MVT::i32)); > DAG.getNode(ISD::ADD,...

On Aug 2, 2009, at 7:09 AM, Artjom Kochtchi wrote: > > Greetinigs, > > I am extending llc to include runtime checks for calls (in X86). So > a call > 'call target' is altered to look like this: > > [some check] > jne error_function > call target > > I've done this by implementing...

...basically stolen from BranchFolder::SplitMBBAt. Currently I use the gcc benchmark from SPEC2000 to generate the error, but I guess every reasonably complex program will do. I have attached my MachineFunctionPass, in case you need to look at the code. Does anyone have an idea what is wrong here? - Artjom http://www.nabble.com/file/p25552660/SplitMinPass.cpp SplitMinPass.cpp -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Split-MachineBasicBlocks-tp25552660p25552660.html Sent from the LLVM - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I have a MachineFunctionPass plugged into llc during LLVMTargetMachine::addPreRegAlloc. In this Pass I need to extend calls (i. e. CALL32m, CALL32r) iff they call function within the program. CALL32m has, I think, ten different possibilities for the four operands giving the target address. At the moment I have excluded calls that give the displacement as GlobalAddress or JumpTableIndex

Hello RoR folks, I am using Instant Rails and a small app that currently uses scaffolding for CRUD on just one table with 7 attributes. I am not shure wether scaffolding slows down the app that much but I have a time lag for every request with above 4 sec. The preinstalled apps like Type are running damn fast, which is not the case for my stuff. Any help on this would be great Thanks, RTG --