search for: kasra_n500

--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [LLVM][g++] A helping hand > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc..edu> > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 8:29 AM > On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > > Hi All, > > > > I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently > there is almost no C++ support (C s...

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 2:52 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen > <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > > > >> On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: > >>&...

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:17 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra > <kasra_n500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > I guess the backends could know about the > instructions....

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra <kasra_n500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions within llvm. > I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of having these? They would have to be mapp...

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > From: Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:20 PM > On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > > I guess the backends could know about the > instructions. But I am not convinced why it is beneficial > n...

Hi All, I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently there is almost no C++ support (C support only). Just wondering who is the person to contact so I could help out with C++ extension for LLVM. With Best Regards KaZ Department of Mathematics and Computing Imperial College London

On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > Hi All, > > I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently there is almost no C++ support (C support only). > LLVM is written in C++, has a C++ API, and llvm-gcc frontend can compile C++ programs. What exactly is the C++ support you are missing? Best regards, --Edwin

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >>> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >>> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >>> instructions to LLVM? >>

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not > convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions > within llvm. > How would it be beneficial to have them, if we already generate them at the target level properly? Adding instructions "just because" doesn't seem wise. -Owen

Hi, I have been away from the list for a while, so do apologize in advance if the topic is slightly off topic here. I have started a hobby project to create a virtual OS library (jos). The idea was to create a set of C API's for operating system specific tasks i.e. File IO, threading and etc. For example: typedef jos_handle jos_thread; jos_thread jos_thread_create(...); void

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >> instructions to LLVM? > > Not sure what you mean: He's referring to the LLVM IR, I think, and it's true that doesn't have

Hi, I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these instructions to LLVM? The reason that I am asking is for cryptographical algorithms which are becoming ever more important rotation is a major operation. Thus including such instruction could reduce 3 instructions {shl, shr, or} into {rol | ror} which could gain

Thanks Nick for the compile. I think the case for rol/ror is closed. Since LLVM optomises the code into rotations anyway. -- Kasra

Hi, I was looking at the documentation for exception handling in llvm, and found a lot of todo stuff there. So I was wondering how to do exception handling in llvm. -- Kasra

Hi, I am wondering about the status of GSoc this year. The mailing list seems to be rather quiet on the topic. Has anyone thought of project ideas? -- Kasra :-D

Hi guys, I was looking arround Firefox 3.1 js JIT (TraceMonkey), it made me wonder if there is anyone working on a trace-tree technique for optimising the runtime over head of LLVM JIT?? ---------------------------------------------------------------- With Best Regards Mr. Kasra Nassiri Department of Mathematics & Computer Science Imperial College London

Hello, When I was poking arround my llvm code, I realised that given a Type there isn't a seperate container for the type operator functions. Am I correct? If so, wouldn't it make more sence to provide a container to put the objects operator function in to reduce the overhead of going through each non operator function to find the operator function defined for it?? The reason for this

On Mar 29, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Kasra wrote: > >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I was looking arround Firefox 3.1 js JIT (TraceMonkey), it made me >> wonder if there is anyone working on a trace-tree technique for >> optimising the runtime over head of LLVM JIT?? >> > >LLVM directly supports this sort of

>Only compile to LLVM IR the pieces of the code that are hot. Cold >pieces just run through the interpreter. Falling off the trace tree >returns to the interpreter. Chaining of traces can be done by having >traces end with indirect tail calls. Sounds like a plan. I don't suppose anyone is working on this, righ? I thought we could have a flag in the LLVM IR that could

Hi, for some reason I could not get the machine code generator for x86 working. The interpreter is the only thing that works, is there anything that I am missing here? -- Kasra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090622/89dca208/attachment.html>