search for: disableverifi

On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: > New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. diff --git include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h index 07ca070..afff96e 100644 --- include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h +++ include/llvm/MC/MCAssembler.h

New patch taking Eli's comments into account. Olivier. On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 11:09 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Seems reasonable, but I haven't looked at the code yet. I would >>> suggest trying to split your work up into separate

New patch. Thanks for all of your comments ! > Comments inline. If you have commit access, I'd fire away. If not, I can. I don't have commit access, if you find it ok, please commit it. :) Olivier. On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 6:56 AM, Reid Kleckner <reid.kleckner at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 3:41 PM, Olivier Meurant > <meurant.olivier at gmail.com>

Hi, I am working on an LLVM backend for GPUs, and I would like to be able to emit a very simple byte stream of machine code, so that it can be fed directly into the GPU. I don't need anything fancy, just the raw machine code, one instruction after another. I think I've already implemented everything in the backend that is required to do this, but I'm not sure how to get a pointer to

Hi Ankur, > The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( > "llc -help" doesn't list it ). as far as I remember, displaying DAGs during compilation is only enabled in "debug builds" [1] of LLVM. You probably have to re-configure and re-compile LLVM to enable this feature. Best regards, Christoph [1]

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take > a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit > improvements if you have commit access): About the API changes, some that hit me when I ported some code to LLVM 2.7, and not in the release notes (I had sent a private email some time ago) : ---

I am trying to understand the SelectionDAG construction from LLVM IR. I have gone through the doc "The LLVM Target-Independent Code Generator" on LLVM site. This gives a great initial overview. However I am unable to catch the actual control flow for the llvm->selectionDag conversion. The flags "-view-sched-dags".. described in the doc doesn't seem to work. ( "llc

Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit improvements if you have commit access): http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Things still needed are marked with FIXMEs. These include: 1. Clang needs a blurb describing what's new in 2.7. Have the clang folks been doing anything for the last 6 months? 2. I

Hi llvmdev, I am still using llvm 2.9. The function addPassesToEmitMC in 3.0 takes a extra parameter to specify the raw stream for the emitter to emit code. However in 2.9, there is no such a parameter. How shall I do if want to pass a raw_stream object? llvm 2.9 // addPassesToEmitMC - Add passes to the specified pass manager to get /// machine code emitted with the MCJIT. This method returns

Thanks, I must have missed these, added. On Apr 22, 2010, at 1:28 AM, Matthieu Moy wrote: > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > >> Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take >> a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit >> improvements if you have commit access): > > About the API changes, some that hit

Hi all After codegen for a given function, the IR should no longer be needed. In the AsmPrinter we convert from MI->MCInstr, and then we never go back and look at the IR during the MC layer. I’ve prototyped a simple pass which can be (optionally) scheduled to do just this. It is added at the end of addPassesToEmitFile. It is optional so that clang can continue to leak the IR with

Tom, I think it might be productive to fork this thread to discuss making the requirements for upstreaming a new LLVM target more explicit and open. I'd also like to gauge interest in an idea I've discussed privately with a few community members, namely the concept of having a semi-official "incubation" system whereby proposed backends could get a trial run before becoming part

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive