Displaying 7 results from an estimated 7 matches for "minwook".
Did you mean:
jinwook
2010 Jan 20
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Is there any way to eliminate zero-extension instruction?
...for our target machine.
Assume that we have the following code in our source code.
int i = ( a < b );
The code is translated into
r0 <- gt r1 r2
r3 <- and r0 0x1
We think that r3 is not necessary. Is there any way to eliminate it by just
modifying
our backend?
Thank you in advance.
Minwook Ahn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100120/13ad88bb/attachment.html>
2010 Jan 20
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Is it possible to implement target specific optimizations which can be applied after instruction selection or later?
Dear developers.
My question is the same as the title.
Is there any way to implement target specific optimizations after
instruction selection or later?
I cannot find any related document. Please let me know.
Thanks in advance.
Minwook Ahn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100120/12439e9b/attachment.html>
2010 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Is there any way to eliminate zero-extension instruction?
On 20 Jan 2010, at 07:55, minwook Ahn wrote:
> Dear developers.
>
> We try to make our own backend of llvm for our target machine.
>
> Assume that we have the following code in our source code.
>
> int i = ( a < b );
>
> The code is translated into
>
> r0 <- gt r1 r2
> r3 <- and r0...
2010 Jan 22
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Is it possible to implement target specific optimizations which can be applied after instruction selection or later?
Yes. There are lots of examples of this. For example ARM target has a number of specific optimization passes. See ARMTargetMachine.cpp addPreEmitPass() etc. for examples of how they are added to codegen pass manager.
Evan
On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:34 PM, minwook Ahn wrote:
> Dear developers.
>
> My question is the same as the title.
> Is there any way to implement target specific optimizations after instruction selection or later?
>
> I cannot find any related document. Please let me know.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Minwo...
2010 Jan 12
1
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Does our own developed module and functions can go along with the future improved version of LLVM?
On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 3:27 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote:
> Hi Minwook Ahn,
>
>> We want to build our compiler based on LLVM by adding our own modules
>> and functions
>>
>> which are specific to the features of our processor hardware.
>
> do you mean that you have files containing bitcode which contain useful
> routines for your pr...
2010 Jan 12
2
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Does our own developed module and functions can go along with the future improved version of LLVM?
...LLVM by adding our own modules and
functions
which are specific to the features of our processor hardware.
In case of our developed modules, is it guaranteed that the modules can work
in the future version of LLVM?
In order to do so, what guideline is required to do that?
Thank you in advance.
Minwook Ahn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100112/2f698b72/attachment.html>
2010 Jan 12
0
[LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] Does our own developed module and functions can go along with the future improved version of LLVM?
Hi Minwook Ahn,
> We want to build our compiler based on LLVM by adding our own modules
> and functions
>
> which are specific to the features of our processor hardware.
do you mean that you have files containing bitcode which contain useful
routines for your processor, and that you use like a...