search for: ismachineconstantpoolentri

On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Ivan Llopard <ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > > > On 07/05/2012 18:15, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>  wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Tuning my TargetAsmPrinter implementation in the back-end side, I

Hi Eli, On 07/05/2012 18:15, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> Tuning my TargetAsmPrinter implementation in the back-end side, I >> discovered that the address space number is not passed down while >> emitting global variables with constant initializers. The information is

Hi everyone, vmkit requires to know the size of a jitted method before emitting the method. This allows to allocate the correct size for the method. The attached patch creates this functionality when the flag SizedMemoryCode is on. In order to implement this functionality, i had to virtualize some MachineCodeEmitter functions. Is it OK to commit the patch? Thanks, Nicolas --------------

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > 1) How are you computing size of the method being > jitted? I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these function by incrementing a counter. At the end of the pass, the code size of the

Hi, Two questions. 1) How are you computing size of the method being jitted? 2) Why not simply add the functionality of allocating emission buffer of specific size to MachineCodeEmitter instead? Thanks, Evan On Mar 30, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > vmkit requires to know the size of a jitted method before emitting > the method. This allows to

On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> 1) How are you computing size of the method being >> jitted? > > I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a > SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as > writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these

Le 08/05/2012 20:44, Eli Friedman a écrit : > On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 4:59 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Eli, >> >> >> On 07/05/2012 18:15, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Ivan Llopard<ivanllopard at gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> Tuning my

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > That's a hack. :-) It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful utility ;-) > Some targets already have ways to compute the exact > size of a function. See ARM::GetFunctionSize()

Evan Cheng wrote: > > Let's see. ARM has it already. PPC has getNumBytesForInstruction so > you only need to add one to compute function size. Also you only need > to implement it for targets that support JIT right now, which leaves > Alpha and X86. I'm guessing Alpha is using fixed encoding so it should > be pretty easy. Or you can just punt it and let the target

On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> Let's see. ARM has it already. PPC has getNumBytesForInstruction so >> you only need to add one to compute function size. Also you only need >> to implement it for targets that support JIT right now, which leaves >> Alpha and X86. I'm

On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: >> >> >> That's a hack. :-) > > It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually > writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful > utility ;-) Except it's pretty slow at it. :-)

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > > I don't think the duplication is going to be top much of a problem. If > it is, I'll bug you about refactoring. :) > > I don't mean to show how lazy I can be, but I also need to know the size of the exception table emitted in memory (JITDwarfEmitter.cpp). Reviewing it a little, I can not see how things won't be duplicated.

On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> I don't think the duplication is going to be top much of a problem. >> If >> it is, I'll bug you about refactoring. :) >> >> > > I don't mean to show how lazy I can be, but I also need to know the > size > of the exception table