search for: machinecodeemitters

> Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the > 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file handling at all. Do look at the > code for the MachineCodeWritter and you will see it only writes to memory > and if it reaches the end of the allotted memory I believe higher ordered > logic reallocates a larget buffer and starts again from scratch. This could > be

On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 3:26 AM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com > wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Aaron Gray < > aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: > >> I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the >>> name 'ObjectFileWriter'... >>> >> >> Thats much more descriptive of

> Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the > 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file handling at all. Do look at the > code for the MachineCodeWritter and you will see it only writes to memory > and if it reaches the end of the allotted memory I believe higher ordered > logic reallocates a larget buffer and starts again from scratch. This could > be

>> Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the >> 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file handling at all. Do look at the >> code for the MachineCodeWritter and you will see it only writes to memory >> and if it reaches the end of the allotted memory I believe higher ordered >> logic reallocates a larget buffer and starts again from scratch.

On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:52 PM, Aaron Gray < aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: > I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the >> name 'ObjectFileWriter'... >> > > Thats much more descriptive of the functionality. > Sorry, I disagree actually the MachineCodeEmitter or the 'MachineCodeWritter' does not do any file

I have done a possible cleanup patch for the MachineCodeEmitter, ELFWriter, and MachOWriter classes. It removes the two startGVStub(), and finishGVStub() JIT specific methods. You may remember the following comments :- /// JIT SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS - DO NOT IMPLEMENT THESE HERE! To get rid of these easily turned out to be a semicomplex modification because of the JITInfo classes dependance on

...en be simply re-written to use these generic functions >instead of the hard-coded MachO and ELF ones. Okay, this give more flexability and usability. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are >> hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. > > I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a > COFF file backend. > >> In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the >> Common Code Generator are not generic....

I'll look at these. First scan looks good. Are you able to run some tests? Evan On Feb 28, 2009, at 9:36 AM, Aaron Gray wrote: > I have done a possible cleanup patch for the MachineCodeEmitter, > ELFWriter, and MachOWriter classes. It removes the two > startGVStub(), and finishGVStub() JIT specific methods. > > You may remember the following comments :- > >

Hi! I'm looking for a way to make the the "llc" tool (or any other tool), directly produce a binary file for some target. The TargetMachine class has a method 'addPassesToEmitMachineCode', that's suitable for that, but that method also requires an instance of MachineCodeEmitter. The existing MachineCodeEmitter derived classes are either debug-only (writing to

> Aaron, I mailed in the same mail twice (by mistake), you answered both > copies. Differently! > > In any case, I've re-read what exists. I'm dumping what I understand > here, so that we can discuss in detail. I'm using MachO as the example > object format, as the ELF code is totally broken and outdated. Lets > use the following as the basis for our discussion?

> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are > hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a COFF file backend. > In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the > Common Code Generator are not generic. I was looking at making a pa...

...bject Files the TargetMachine supports. llc could then be simply re-written to use these generic functions instead of the hard-coded MachO and ELF ones. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com> wrote: >> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are >> hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. > > I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a > COFF file backend. > >> In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the >> Common Code Generator are not generic....

> I've never looked at the MachO code as I do not have such a platform nor do > I know the file format. > > Could we concentrate on the ELF backend, please. I don't mind using the ELF backend as our test case, it just seems that the ELFWriter/ELFCodeEmitter don't even use the BufferBegin/BufferEnd/CurBufferPtr system exposed by the base MachineCodeEmitter. There is a big

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

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I'm looking for a way to make the the "llc" tool (or any other tool), > directly produce a binary file for some target. ok > The TargetMachine class has a method 'addPassesToEmitMachineCode', that's > suitable for that, but that method also requires an instance of > MachineCodeEmitter. Actually, you probably

Hi, The following code: #include<stdio.h> char bigArray[0x1000000]; int main(int argc, char **argv) { printf("mem: 0x%x\n", (unsigned) bigArray); return 0; } causes lli to silently fail, even though it compiles correctly with llc. The reason is that in JITEmitter.cpp only checks to see if CurBufferPtr == BufferEnd at the beginning of the function and not after all

Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the Common Code Generator are not generic. LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile explicitly checks whether the derived backend TargetMachine implements one of getMachOWriterInfo or...

Thanks. I do not have commit privilege. Tom ----- Original Message ----- From: "Evan Cheng" <evan.cheng at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, December 8, 2008 5:39:33 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] MachineCodeEmitter Patch Looks good. Do you have commit privilege? Evan On Nov 22, 2008, at

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 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