Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "cc_out".
Did you mean:
_out
2011 Feb 18
0
[LLVMdev] Adding "S" suffixed ARM/Thumb2 instructions
...aved them untouched.
Adding separate "s" instructions is not the right thing to do. We've been trying hard to avoid adding those "twins". The instructions that can optionally set the condition codes have an "optional def" operand. For example, look at the "cc_out" operand in the "sI" class defined in ARMInstrFormats.td. If that operand is set to the CPSR register, then the instruction becomes the "s" variant.
There are some existing peephole optimizations to make use of this, but there are some unresolved issues as well. Do you h...
2011 Feb 18
2
[LLVMdev] Adding "S" suffixed ARM/Thumb2 instructions
Hello everyone,
I've added the "S" suffixed versions of ARM and Thumb2 instructions to
tablegen. Those are, for example, "movs" or "muls".
Of course, some instructions have already had their twins, such as add/adds,
and I leaved them untouched.
Besides, I propose the codegen optimization based on them, which removes the
redundant comparison in patterns like
orr
2018 Mar 16
0
Mapping InlineAsm parameters to ConstraintInfoVector elements
Could you provide an example where MSan checks an output parameter?
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Alexander Potapenko via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm trying to figure out which parameters of a given InlineAsm instruction
> are its inputs, and which are the outputs (rationale: make sure MSan
> doesn't check the output parameters of
2018 Mar 16
2
Mapping InlineAsm parameters to ConstraintInfoVector elements
Hi all,
I'm trying to figure out which parameters of a given InlineAsm instruction
are its inputs, and which are the outputs (rationale: make sure MSan
doesn't check the output parameters of an asm() statement).
As far as I understand, this information is only available through the
ConstraintInfoVector for the InlineAsm. However there's no exact match
between the constraints and the
2011 Sep 07
1
[LLVMdev] ARM CPSR liveness
All,
ARM LLVM afficianados: I'm trying to understand how LiveVariables computes
liveness for CPSR. In particular,
I would like to tell whether a particular instruction is a use/kill/def for
doing some within block liveness checking I need.
Thanks in advance,
David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
2015 Jul 10
0
[LLVMdev] TSFlags
On 7/10/2015 10:23 AM, Sky Flyer wrote:
> Many thanks for your prompt reply.
>
> I mean, imagine you have 3 bits for condition flags in your instruction
> (e.g. overflow, zero, carry set, ...) for conditional executions AND
> there is no direct access to the Status Register, is it even possible to
> implement such scenario?
>
There doesn't have to be any explicit status
2015 Jul 10
3
[LLVMdev] TSFlags
Many thanks for your prompt reply.
I mean, imagine you have 3 bits for condition flags in your instruction
(e.g. overflow, zero, carry set, ...) for conditional executions AND there
is no direct access to the Status Register, is it even possible to
implement such scenario?
On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 4:54 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <
kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
> On 7/10/2015 9:32
2017 Oct 04
28
x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
These patches make the changes necessary to build the kernel as Position
Independent Executable (PIE) on x86_64. A PIE kernel can be relocated below
the top 2G of the virtual address space. It allows to optionally extend the
KASLR randomization range from 1G to 3G.
Thanks a lot to Ard Biesheuvel & Kees Cook on their feedback on compiler
changes, PIE support and KASLR in general. Thanks to
2017 Oct 04
28
x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
These patches make the changes necessary to build the kernel as Position
Independent Executable (PIE) on x86_64. A PIE kernel can be relocated below
the top 2G of the virtual address space. It allows to optionally extend the
KASLR randomization range from 1G to 3G.
Thanks a lot to Ard Biesheuvel & Kees Cook on their feedback on compiler
changes, PIE support and KASLR in general. Thanks to
2017 Oct 11
32
[PATCH v1 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes:
- patch v1:
- Simplify ftrace implementation.
- Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible.
- rfc v3:
- Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce dynamic relocation space on
mapped memory. It also simplifies the relocation process.
- Move the start the module section next to the kernel. Remove the need for
-mcmodel=large on modules. Extends
2017 Oct 11
32
[PATCH v1 00/27] x86: PIE support and option to extend KASLR randomization
Changes:
- patch v1:
- Simplify ftrace implementation.
- Use gcc mstack-protector-guard-reg=%gs with PIE when possible.
- rfc v3:
- Use --emit-relocs instead of -pie to reduce dynamic relocation space on
mapped memory. It also simplifies the relocation process.
- Move the start the module section next to the kernel. Remove the need for
-mcmodel=large on modules. Extends