search for: kellom

As I have explained in another thread, I am in the process of porting portions of newlib to LLVM. The target system has no operating system and a custom processor which may be changed from compilation to compilation. We intend to use LLVM as the front end and generate target specific code from LLVM byte code. For various reasons (whole program optimization being one of them), it would seem to

We are going to use LLVM in a compiler project for transport triggered processors. See Wikipedia for more on transport triggering: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Triggered_Architectures>. One thing we need is some sort of libc. We are targeting embedded systems, and I have been looking at things like newlib. Are there people out there doing something similar? Or any advice or

Hello all, I am trying to build llvm 1.8a with gcc 4.1.1 and I get the attached error. Are there any easy workarounds or should I just try another version of gcc? -- Pertti -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: build-error URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20060901/350fb4a1/attachment.ksh>

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Kellom�ki Pertti wrote: > I am trying to build llvm 1.8a with gcc 4.1.1 and I get the attached error. > Are there any easy workarounds or should I just try another version of gcc? I haven't seen this error, but I'm not using GCC 4.1.1. It would be good to track this down and either file a...

I fixed my immediate problem by using a different version of gcc. Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > The offending line of code looks fine on our side, > but there could be something I'm missing. For what it is worth, I've run into problems with boost_concept_check before when using Boost.Python. Some versions of gcc worked fine, while others gave error messages relating to

On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > I fixed my immediate problem by using a different version > of gcc. ok. > Chris Lattner kirjoitti: >> The offending line of code looks fine on our side, >> but there could be something I'm missing. > > For what it is worth, I've run into problems wit...

Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > Question: does GCC 4.1.2 (if it exists) or GCC mainline fix the > problem? If so, we should document 4.1.1 as being buggy. GCC 4.1.2 does not exist yet, but I grabbed the 4.2-20060906 snapshot of GCC and it compiled LLVM without problems. I verified that the hello world example from Getting Started worked, but did not test beyond that. This is on x86 Gentoo. --

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > to identify that we are compiling to LLVM byte code. If there is > one, I'd be happy to hear it, but if not, then it might be a good > idea to define __LLVM__ or something like that in (by) llvm-gcc. llvm-gcc defines __llvm__. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://l...

On Thu, 9 Nov 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: >> Currently there are a few intrinsics that have >> to do with libc, like llvm.memcpy and llvm.memmove. However, I >> would personally prefer less pollution in the intrinsic name space, >> so I would propose naming the intrinsics with a llvm.libc prefix, >> e.g. llvm.libc.open and so forth. Any strong opinions on this? >

Chris Lattner kirjoitti: > There isn't any really good reason to have an llvm intrinsic for write, > just leave 'write' as an external function. So is the opportunity for inlining the only reason for e.g. the llvm.memcpy intrinsic? -- Pertti

To follow up on my own post: > The only concern here is that this brings in all of libc, but I > suppose it should be easy enough to run dead code elimination on > linked.bc to shake out the unused bits? Cursory browsing of LLVM optimization passes did not turn up anything directly applicable, at least "opt -adce" and "opt -globaldce" did not reduce the size of the

On Wed, 15 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > I succesfully built a byte code version of newlib, so I tried to > use it like this: > > $ llvm-link hello.bc $NEWLIB/libc.a -o linked.bc > > but apparently llvm-link only understands byte code files. Right, llvm-link is the low level bytecode linking interface, not...

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Emil Mikulic wrote: > LLVMers, given the same endianness and pointersize, can one mix and > match LLVM bytecode files produced on different platforms? No, not in general. For example, on the mac, printf it often #defined to printf$ldbl, which doesn't exist on linux. System headers generally foil the ability to move stuff around like that. -Chris --

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, Emil Mikulic wrote: >> LLVMers, given the same endianness and pointersize, can one mix and >> match LLVM bytecode files produced on different platforms? > > No, not in general. For example, on the mac, printf it often #defined to > printf$ldbl, which doesn't exist on linux. System headers generally foil > the ability

Is there some fundamental reason why instructions have a visitor interface but types do not? Or does the support in fact exist and I am just blind? -- Pertti

We are using LLVM to target a customizable processor architecture. One of the activities to be supported is architecture exploration, where one explores the processor design space (e.g. connectivity, number of FUs) and tries to find a good match for the application at hand. The exploration needs to be relatively rapid, so targeting and compiling gcc for each of the processor variants is not

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > Is this correct? If so, can I just grab any one of the targets > supported by gcc, and modify the data sizes etc. to my liking? Yep, that should work. If you just use -emit-llvm all the time, you should be able to use any target GCC supports. > Any technical reasons to avoi...

There was some discussion in the summer on the mailing list about atomicity and synchronization primitives for LLVM. Is there any progress being made in that department? -- Pertti

On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > There was some discussion in the summer on the mailing list > about atomicity and synchronization primitives for LLVM. Is > there any progress being made in that department? Nope, not that I know of. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-1] Pertti Kellom�ki wrote: > Aside from stuff that depends on system headers, are there any other > dependencies on the host system? In other words, will llvm-gcc produce > exactly the same byte code for a given set of source files regardless of > where compilation takes place? This has obvious implicat...