Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "dispforreloc".
2008 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] Being able to know the jitted code-size before emitting
...+
> +static unsigned sizeMemModRMByte(const MachineInstr &MI, unsigned Op,
> + bool IsPIC, bool Is64BitMode) {
getMemModRMByteSize()?
>
> + const MachineOperand &Op3 = MI.getOperand(Op+3);
> + int DispVal = 0;
> + const MachineOperand *DispForReloc = 0;
> + unsigned FinalSize = 0;
> +
> + // Figure out what sort of displacement we have to handle here.
> + if (Op3.isGlobalAddress()) {
> + DispForReloc = &Op3;
> + } else if (Op3.isConstantPoolIndex()) {
> + if (Is64BitMode || IsPIC) {
> + DispForReloc...
2008 Apr 15
4
[LLVMdev] Being able to know the jitted code-size before emitting
OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the
implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and GetFunctionSize.
Both functions are virtual functions defined in TargetInstrInfo.h.
For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to
X86InstrInfo.
What do you think?
Nicolas
Evan Cheng wrote:
>
> I think both of these belong to TargetInstrInfo. And
2009 May 05
1
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
Hi,
It looks like the problem was with the RIP relative addressing. The
original patch mistakenly
removed the || DispForReloc part because I tough that the RIP relative
addressing was done
by the SIB encodings, but it is actually done by the shorter ones.
The attached patch seems to work for me on linux and when simulating darwin
by forcing some variables in X86TargetMachine.cpp to their darwin values....
2009 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
Hi,
I can't reproduce these failures on my linux machine. The test machine
seems to be
running darwin. I suspect that the problem might be with RIP relative
addressing, or with
the encoding of R12/R13, but the code seems to handle the latter, since it
checks for
ESP/EBP which is the same as R12/R13.
Zoltan
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at
2009 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
Hi Zoltan,
The part that determines whether SIB byte is needed caused a lot of
regressions last night (see Geryon-X86-64 etc.). I've reverted it for
now. Please take a look.
Thanks,
Evan
On May 4, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Evan Cheng wrote:
> Committed as revision 70929. Thanks.
>
> Evan
>
> On May 3, 2009, at 8:29 PM, vargaz wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>