search for: lfunc_end1

...$32, %rsp movl %edi, -8(%rbp) movq %rsi, -16(%rbp) movl $.L.cst.3, %edi movl $.L.cst.2, %esi movl $1, %edx xorl %eax, %eax callq printf movl $0, -4(%rbp) movl -4(%rbp), %eax addq $32, %rsp popq %rbp retq .Lfunc_end1: .size main, .Lfunc_end1-main .cfi_endproc .type __func__.2210, at object # @__func__.2210 .section .rodata,"a", at progbits __func__.2210: .asciz "foo" .size __func__.2210, 4 .type .L.cst, at object # @.cst...

...type bar, at function bar: # @bar # BB#0: # %entry pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp #APP named_label_1: jne named_label_1 #NO_APP popl %ebp retl .Lfunc_end1: .size bar, .Lfunc_end1-bar This is with clang 4.0.0 from the release_40 branch. I have no idea when the %= support was added. -Dimitry > On 05 Feb 2017, at 10:50, Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I think we may already support it. At l...

from https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html Under certain circumstances, GCC may duplicate (or remove duplicates of) > your assembly code when optimizing. This can lead to unexpected duplicate > symbol errors during compilation if your asm code defines symbols or > labels. Using ‘%=’ (see AssemblerTemplate) may help resolve this problem. ‘%=’ > Outputs a number that is

Hi, I wanted to know if it was possible to force ARM backend to compile a function in ARM while the rest is in Thumb mode. I tried the attributes which is used in GCC but it doesn't work. Here is what I tried: https://pastebin.com/jCr5LPUY Thanks in advance, Uvekilledkenny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

...e_end # a.c:19:2 .Ltmp22: movl -8(%ebp), %ecx movl %edx, (%esp) movl %ecx, 4(%esp) movl %eax, %ebx calll printf at PLT .loc 1 20 1 # a.c:20:1 movl %eax, -12(%ebp) # 4-byte Spill addl $20, %esp popl %ebx popl %ebp ret .Ltmp23: .Ltmp24: .size meh, .Ltmp24-meh .Lfunc_end1: .Ltmp25: .cfi_endproc .Leh_func_end1: .globl foo .align 16, 0x90 .type foo, at function foo: # @foo .Ltmp29: .cfi_startproc .Lfunc_begin2: .loc 1 24 0 # a.c:24:0 # BB#0: pushl %ebp .Ltmp30: .cfi_def_cfa_offset 8 .Ltmp31: .cfi_offset %eb...

Hi Joan, On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 18:01, Joan Lluch <joan.lluch at icloud.com> wrote: > After looking at it a bit further, I think this is a Clang thing. Clang issues “align 2” if the struct has at least one int (2 bytes), but also if the entire struct size is multiple of 2. For example a struct with 4 char members. In these cases the LLVM backend correctly creates word sized load/stores

...# %newFuncRoot pushq %rbp pushq %rbx pushq %rax movq %rsi, %rbx movl %edi, %ebp callq R1 incl %ebp movl %ebp, (%rbx) addq $8, %rsp popq %rbx popq %rbp retq .Lfunc_end1: .size foo.cold.1, .Lfunc_end1-foo.cold.1 # -- End function .cg_profile foo, L1, 0 .cg_profile foo, foo.cold.1, 7 .section ".note.GNU-stack","", at progbits .addrsig .addrsig_...

Hi, I am trying to execute a simple hello world program compiled like so: path/to/compiled/clang -o test --target=aarch64-linux-gnu -march=armv8.5-a -fsanitize=hwaddress --sysroot=/usr/aarch64-linux-gnu/ -L/usr/lib/gcc/aarch64-linux-gnu/10.1.0/ -g test.c However, when I look at the disassembly, there is an unknown instruction listed at 0x2d51c: 000000000002d4c0 main: 2d4c0: ff c3 00 d1

...# %newFuncRoot pushq %rbp pushq %rbx pushq %rax movq %rsi, %rbx movl %edi, %ebp callq R1 incl %ebp movl %ebp, (%rbx) addq $8, %rsp popq %rbx popq %rbp retq .Lfunc_end1: .size foo.cold.1, .Lfunc_end1-foo.cold.1 # -- End function .cg_profile foo, L1, 0 .cg_profile foo, foo.cold.1, 7 .section ".note.GNU-stack","", at progbits .addrsig .addrsig_...

...%ebp >> >> callq R1 >> >> incl %ebp >> >> movl %ebp, (%rbx) >> >> addq $8, %rsp >> >> popq %rbx >> >> popq %rbp >> >> retq >> >> .Lfunc_end1: >> >> .size foo.cold.1, .Lfunc_end1-foo.cold.1 >> >> # -- End function >> >> .cg_profile foo, L1, 0 >> >> .cg_profile foo, foo.cold.1, 7 >> >> .section &quot...

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:50 AM, David Chisnall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > This seems slightly inverted. As I understand it, the root of the problem > is that some standards, such as C, C++, and POSIX, define some functions as > special and we rely on their specialness when optimising. Unfortunately, > the specialness is a property of the source

Hi Dimitry, Thanks for your kind response! Thanks for the commit message of Jung's patch, I found that the bug had been fixed in OpenJDK 12 by Zhengyu https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8205965 But only backported to 11. So Jung could backport it for OpenJDK 8, thanks a lot! But I argue that the root cause might be in the compiler side, why clang-3.9.1, gcc-6.4.1 couldn't