Displaying 8 results from an estimated 8 matches for "l00000000001".
2004 May 09
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
...on.
>
> I took this very simple C function:
>
> int Array[1000];
> void test(int X) {
> int i;
> for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
> Array[i] += X;
> }
>
> Compile with -O3 on OS/X gave me this:
>
> _test:
> mflr r5
> bcl 20,31,"L00000000001$pb"
> "L00000000001$pb":
> mflr r2
> mtlr r5
> addis r4,r2,ha16(L_Array$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")
> li r2,0
> lwz r9,lo16(L_Array$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")(r4)
> li r4,1000
>...
2004 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
On Tue, 4 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote:
> I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM.
> I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from
> CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's
> sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using
> the C backend to generate native
2004 May 04
2
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM.
I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from
CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's
sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using
the C backend to generate native code for PPC.
Most of the LLVM results were close to gcc
2004 May 04
6
[LLVMdev] Testing LLVM on OS X
...(ie, without
> syntactic loops).
Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on.
I took this very simple C function:
int Array[1000];
void test(int X) {
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 1000; ++i)
Array[i] += X;
}
Compile with -O3 on OS/X gave me this:
_test:
mflr r5
bcl 20,31,"L00000000001$pb"
"L00000000001$pb":
mflr r2
mtlr r5
addis r4,r2,ha16(L_Array$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")
li r2,0
lwz r9,lo16(L_Array$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb")(r4)
li r4,1000
mtctr r4
L9:
lwzx r7,r2,r9...
2009 Jun 16
0
[LLVMdev] PIC documentation ?
...DarwinVers in the X86 and PPC back ends and look
around for "stubs" if you want to support Tiger.
int x;
void foo() {
return x;
}
Results on x86-32 with -fomit-frame-pointer (which is not the default):
result of -fPIC (equivalent to -fpic on Darwin):
_foo:
call L3
"L00000000001$pb":
popl %ecx << gets value of PC into %ecx
(other registers can be used)
movl L_x$non_lazy_ptr-"L00000000001$pb"(%ecx), %eax <<
gets &x; PC relative
movl (%eax), %eax << gets x; indirect...
2010 Jan 04
0
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On Monday 04 January 2010 05:16:40 Jeffrey Yasskin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> > LLVM's TCO already handles mutual recursion.
>
> Only for fastcc functions
Yes.
> compiled with -tailcallopt, right?
If you use the compiler, yes.
> http://llvm.org/docs/CodeGenerator.html#tailcallopt
>
> I believe
2009 Jun 16
4
[LLVMdev] PIC documentation ?
Anton,
>> Can I ask what platform ABI's are documented other than Itanium ?
> I'd bet all platform ABI are more or less documented.
Right.
Maybe we should collect references and do some LLVM PIC documentation and
put it on LLVM website ?
>> I need to get to understand PIC on x86, x86_64 and PowerPC for the COFF
>> and MachO backends.
> ABI is normally induced
2010 Jan 04
2
[LLVMdev] Tail Call Optimisation
On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:50 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote:
> On Monday 04 January 2010 03:33:06 Simon Harris wrote:
>> On 04/01/2010, at 3:01 PM, Jon Harrop wrote:
>> > I am certainly interested in tail calls because my HLVM project relies
>> > upon LLVM's tail call elimination. However, I do not understand what tail
>> > calls LLVM