search for: asips

...for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). I'm quite related to this field, both from the compiler (software development tools) and (micro)architecture point of view (mostly the latter). My Ph.D. research involves design methodologies for ASIPs (Application-Specific Instruction-set Processors). First of all, i follow rather loosely the developments on LLVM. It really seems that LLVM grows to a production-quality compiler with much more modern internals (to the other compiler :) for the current/future developer. I think you want to conve...

Hi, I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics (similar to raising mallocs). Basically our custom operation are like calls, with operand name and multiple

On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: > I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation > support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best > way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization > pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics > (similar to raising mallocs). >

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, [UTF-8] Mikael Lepist? wrote: > >>> def MOVNTPSmr : PSI<0x2B, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i128mem:$dst, >>> VR128:$src), >>> "movntps {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", >>> [(int_x86_sse_movnt_ps addr:$dst, VR128:$src)]>; >>> >>> There is corresponding code in llvm-gcc to tell GCC how to

On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, [UTF-8] Mikael Lepist? wrote: >> def MOVNTPSmr : PSI<0x2B, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins i128mem:$dst, >> VR128:$src), >> "movntps {$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", >> [(int_x86_sse_movnt_ps addr:$dst, VR128:$src)]>; >> >> There is corresponding code in llvm-gcc to tell GCC how to handle this >> builtin. Is this what you're

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Mikael Lepist� wrote: >> I was talking with aKor in #llvm how we could implement custom operation >> support for our ASIP architecture. We came into solution that the best >> way would be to write new custom operation intrinsic and optimization >> pass for raising certain type of function calls to those intrinsics

Dear all, I would have a proposal for adding a project to the page http://llvm.org/ProjectsWithLLVM/. We successfully use LLVM as a base for a retargetable compiler and below is some information on the project. If you would have any comments, questions or if we should improve the text below, please let me know. --- Codasip Studio By Codasip Ltd. (link https://www.codasip.com/) Codasip

> From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of JF Bastien via [..] > Is it relevant to any modern compiler though? > > I strongly agree with Tim. As I said in previous threads, unless people will have > actual testable targets for this type of thing, I think we shouldn’t add > maintenance burden. This isn’t really C or C++ anymore because so much code

We are working on a backend for an ILP architecture, and at some point we would like to do some sort of region scheduling. To support region formation, we need to collect profiling information. I took a look at the bitcode interpreter, and it is fairly trivial to make it collect profiling data Our target is an ASIP for embedded applications, so it would typically be simulated during software

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 [please cc to my address] Dear Samba and Netatalk experts, I've got a server running both samba 2.2.3a as PDC and netatalk (1.5pre7 as supplied by SuSE73). Samba machine accounts are added to /etc/passwd automatically by the command add user script = /usr/sbin/useradd -d /dev/null -g 90 -s /bin/false -M %u when a NT machine is added to the

Hello gyus, I am working on a project, where we are trying to create a development environment for new ASIP processor design. Part of this project is a compiler generator, where we would like to generate C compiler from some instruction description. To keep it short, let's say, that in each instruction's semantics is described by some C code. What I would like to do is to compile this

On Wed, 2019-10-30 at 15:30 -0700, Chris Lattner via llvm-dev wrote: > > On Oct 30, 2019, at 3:07 AM, Jeroen Dobbelaere via llvm-dev < > > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of JF > > > Bastien via > > > > [..] > > > Is it relevant to any modern compiler

Wiley, There are a couple of issues that we saw while not using this option. 1) sip authentication failures as Asterisk is not able to reach Polycom phones. A typical problem description is here: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/2004-December/079251.ht ml 2) DTMF issues for Transfers, Hold or simply to dial extensions. This problem is more pronounced when you are using

Hi :-) I am struggling through a RH 8.0 install on a machine we are looking to replace our Netware server. I got tapped to do this as I support the Graphics Deparment Mac OS ASIP server (running over 2 years now without a crash and no outage except for general maintenance). I am attempting to set up SAMBA to provide file sharing for our Windows clients (something not for the faint of heart,

Hi, I'm having trouble connecting to an Appleshare IP 6.2 Mac that is doing SMB file sharing from my RedHat Linux 7.2 box. I've looked and looked and looked at many things and many SMB clients. I've tried smbclient, smbmount, Sharity, and even just doing a mount -t smbfs. All of them come back with something of this form: Protocol Negotiation Failed SMB connection failed. I

Hi Jeroen, Thanks, these are interesting differences. The CHAR_BIT and byte relation is established in the C standard and I would prefer the byte terminology. It means the same thing as addressable unit but is a bit shorter and probably more widely known. Do you suggest any in-tree changes at some call sites using the suggested AdressSpace parameter or would we rely on the default value always?

David, just to clarify a misconception I might have introduced, we do not have linear memory in the sense that all data is stored as a trie. We do support arrays, structures and GEPs, however, as well as all relevant features in C by modeling memory. So regarding concepts of byte, all 5 statements you gave are true for our target. Either due to the specification or because of performance (gas

On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 07:19:25PM +0000, Tim Northover via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, 29 Oct 2019 at 19:11, Dmitriy Borisenkov via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > 2. Test with a dummy target. It might work if we have a group of contributors who is willing to rewrite and upstream some of their downstream tests as well as to design and implement the target

On 08/23/2017 12:44 PM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 23 Aug 2017, at 18:21, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> On 08/23/2017 12:06 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote: >>> On 8/23/2017 11:58 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: >>>> If we want to go down that route, I can certainly imagine a feasible

A. This RFC outlines a proposal regarding non-8-bit-byte support that got positive reception at a Round Table at EuroLLVM19. The general topic has been brought up several times before and one good overview can be found in a FOSDEM 2017 presentation by Jones and Cook: https://archive.fosdem.org/2017/schedule/event/llvm_16_bit/ In a nutshell, the proposal is for the llvm community