search for: davidterei

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the > order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly > code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would > like to have this feature is exp...

...-the-struct pointer is really going it could make direct call instead of indirect -- however, I don't know if this is a big deal. Eugene On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the >> order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly >> code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would >> like...

...void foo() { } (Note that you need ".subsection n" commands on ELF targets and ".section name, n" commands on COFF targets; seems that the latter was supported on all targets in old versions of gas, but not any longer). Eugene On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:18 PM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Just wanted to report that I've found a second way to achieve > data/code layout (the first being the linker script that Eugene > mentioned). > > The key is that gnu as supports a feature called subsections. > > http://sourceware....

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a > whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. > > On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: >> My argument amounts to express side tables as side...

...able to just order output of globals and functions make picking sections for them fairly hackish. Andrew > Eugene > > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Redl > <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi All, >>> >>> The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the >>> order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly >>> code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reaso...

Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > My argument amounts to express side tables as side tables in the IR > rather than as an ordering on globals.  I think that would simplify > the backend (a side table is something you discover

...d to the LLVM backend. I'm still planning on adding support to LLVM for supporting side tables in some manner so we can just depend on pure LLVM. Cheers, David On 10 June 2010 18:08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: >> Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a >> whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. >> >> On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: >>> My argument amounts to express...

...tions make picking > sections for them fairly hackish. > > Andrew > > >> Eugene >> >> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Redl >> <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi All, >>>> >>>> The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the >>>> order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly >>>> code produced by llvm to be define...

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM, David Terei<davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > So just hoping this can be done with LLVM and if so, then how. Despite the fact that llvm-gcc accepts the given code, the extension isn't properly supported; the current output is close to correct, but not quite. The issue is that the register allocator isn't...

Hi all, I've been looking at some LLVM assembly produced by llvm-gcc lately and I've noticed a recurring statement of which I'm not sure its purpose. For example, the following C program: int main(void) { void (*f)(void) = (0x21332); f(); } When compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -S" will produce the following code (irrelevant parts removed): define i32 @main()

Resent, to the list this time instead of David (sorry for the duplicate)... On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 9:57 PM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > I've run into some issues with tail calls in the past, make sure you > are doing the following: > > 1. Call should be marked with tail (obviously) > 2. Next statement after tail call should be 'return void' > 3. Use fast call convention for ta...

On 15 June 2010 23:08, Eugene Toder <eltoder at gmail.com> wrote: > Subsections is a very good idea. You can even do without > post-processing by using carefully crafted section names, e.g. > > __attribute__((section(".text,\"ax\", at progbits\n\t.subsection 1 #"))) > void foo() > { > } There is one problem with the section name used here,

Hi Valery On 13 September 2010 19:07, Valery Khamenya <khamenya at gmail.com> wrote: > are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) > language implementations? I've added a new LLVM backend to the ghc Haskell compiler. > How good is LLVM for this? Works very well. I'm operating from the low levels of the ghc compiler though where I don't

Hi Duncan, Any word on this making 3.0? Cheers, David On 16 October 2011 23:03, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >>> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the &gt...

Hi All, The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would like to have this feature is explained in the blog post on GHC's use of llvm here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/glasgow-haskell-compiler-and-llvm.html, specifically under the title,

Hi All, The Glasgow Haskell compiler has recently become an external user of LLVM. You can read about it here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/glasgow-haskell-compiler-and-llvm.html If you have any comments, questions or perhaps even advice on solving some of the issues that need to be fixed in the backend going forward then please reply to this email. Cheers, David

On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, > >> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the >> original function as all the other calling conventions use the same >> set of callee and caller save registers, so GHC is the only one

tail calls are only implemented for fastcall calling convention if i remeber right from my inquiries. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091112/e8f1dd2a/attachment.html>

Hi, are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) language implementations? How good is LLVM for this? E.g., is it natural to expect that the LLVM-based implementation of the language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? Best regards -- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...m fairly hackish. >> >> Andrew >> >> >>> Eugene >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Sebastian Redl >>> <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hi All, >>>>> >>>>> The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the >>>>> order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly >>>>> code produ...