search for: callingconvent

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:33 PM, David Terei wrote: > Hi all, > > As previously mentioned on this list the Haskell compiler GHC has a new LLVM based back-end. The back-end needs a new calling convention to efficiently use LLVM and that is what this patch does, just for X86 at the moment. Nice, > The GHC developers would love to get this included in LLVM so that we don't need to

OK, new patch attached. Hopefully in time for 2.7. Chris Lattner wrote: > 1) is the GHC calling conv intended to be target specific? If it is x86 specific, it should get an X86 prefix. If not, it should move up to be #10 after Cold. No its intended to be supported on any platforms that GHC is supported on, which is just x86 and SPARC at the moment. At the moment I've just done X86, will

Hi all, As previously mentioned on this list the Haskell compiler GHC has a new LLVM based back-end. The back-end needs a new calling convention to efficiently use LLVM and that is what this patch does, just for X86 at the moment. Breakdown: 1) Need actual calling convention Touches: - include/llvm/CallingConv.h - lib/Target/X86/X86CallingConv.td 2) Handling new calling

Currently with my understanding of using callingconv.td I still need to lower three functions, FORMAL_ARGUMENTS, CALL, and RET. Is there any known way to have LLVM automagically generate code from tablegen without having to custom lower these functions? The reasoning for this is that all registers are virtual in my backend and I have specified for llvm to use it's generic dynamic stack

On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:18, Evan Cheng wrote: > +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -mattr=+sse2 -stats -info- > output-file - | grep asm-printer | grep 9 > +; change preceeding line form ... | grep 8 to ..| grep 9 since > +; with new fastcc has std call semantics causing a stack adjustment > +; after the function call > > Not sure if I understand this. Can you illustrate

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Chandler, That's embarrassing how weird this part of clang is. I have a provisional patch which fixes the problem but underlines clang's problems. I will submit it tonight for comments. суббота, 18 октября 2014 г. пользователь Chandler Carruth написал: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < > anton at korobeynikov.info >

Not sure who owns this bit of code, so sending this to the general list. It looks like there may be an unintentional fall through happening in the X86RegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask function. http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/X86RegisterInfo_8cpp_source.html case CallingConv::Intel_OCL_BI

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com

Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 28, 2016, at 12:53 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> On Jun 27, 2016, at 12:25 PM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hello , >>> >>> To solve

> On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 2:27 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>> wrote: > >> >>> On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org

I have tried out the following code which examines each call site in a module for tail call and do not perform optimization in such case: On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 12:34 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> wrote: > > > On Jun 28, 2016, at 11:34 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < >

On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:25 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > > On 24 Sep 2007, at 09:18, Evan Cheng wrote: >> +; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86 -mattr=+sse2 -stats -info- >> output-file - | grep asm-printer | grep 9 >> +; change preceeding line form ... | grep 8 to ..| grep 9 since >> +; with new fastcc has std call semantics causing a stack adjustment >>

Hi Arnold, This is a very good first step! Thanks! Comments below. Evan Index: test/CodeGen/X86/constant-pool-remat-0.ll =================================================================== --- test/CodeGen/X86/constant-pool-remat-0.ll (revision 42247) +++ test/CodeGen/X86/constant-pool-remat-0.ll (working copy) @@ -1,8 +1,10 @@ ; RUN: llvm-as < %s | llc -march=x86-64 | grep LCPI | count 3 ;

The patch is against revision 42247. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tailcall-src.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 62639 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070923/4770302f/attachment.obj>

The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at all, so I had to work from my own sample codes, and generate test cases from them. Here's what works now, and I have a separate test case for each of these: statement functions intrinsic functions (print, cos, etc) loops, goto statments scalarized array operations function calls with *no arguments* simple common

Two related questions. This is with LLVM 2.4 doing a JIT compile to x86-64. (I generate LLVM IR using an IRBuilder instance, compile/optimize, and then call getPointerToFunction() to get a "native" function pointer.) (1) My reading of various mailing list messages seems to indicate that a function marked as using the "fastcc" calling convention

Fedora rawhide now builds on ARM as well as 32-bit and 64-bit x86, and while the x86 builds are successful, the ARM build is failing. I was able to fix the first problem, which was reported in a Debian bug: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=715424 However, there are further build errors for which I haven't found appropriate fixes. It looks like there might be a namespace

Hi Evan, I incoporated the changes you request but to the following i have got a question: > Also, moving the option > there will allow us to change fastcc ABI (callee popping arguments) > only when this option is on. See Chris' email: I am not to sure on that. because that would make modules compiled with the flag on incompatible with ones compiled without the flag off as