search for: parameterizable

...existing cross-compilers. It would be great to see the fronend being parameterized by integer widths at runtime. There would be no noticable loss of efficiency and this would avoid the obnoxious and error-prone situation of keeping many C frontends sitting around. FWIW CIL just lately became parameterizable at runtime with machine-specific information and it's really handy. John > There was a recent discussion about this specific issue. We need to > eliminate the implicit sign/zero extend to 32 bit logic from the code > generator and have the front-ends insert them. > > -Chris...

Got a quick question regarding the latest and greatest: module ActionController module Routing SEPARATORS = %w( / ; . , ? ) Why is period (.) one of the separators? As it stands, the new routing code doesn''t recognize ''file.ext'' as the last component of a URL, which is sometimes defaulted to nil. See the generated code below. I don''t know everything

...eat to see the fronend being parameterized by integer > widths > at runtime. There would be no noticable loss of efficiency and this > would > avoid the obnoxious and error-prone situation of keeping many C > frontends > sitting around. > > FWIW CIL just lately became parameterizable at runtime with > machine-specific information and it's really handy. Hi John, Just to be clear, LLVM fully supports cross compilation. This issue is a problem for LLVM generating code for any target where sizeof(int) != 32, regardless of whether you are natively compiling or cross...

...with this problem for the last couple of hours and am nowhere near solving the problem. I am trying to run a tftp server in a chroot jail. Now perhaps I am being paranoid, but I would like to have it launched from within its own jail even if it supposedly does a chroot itself and runs with a parameterizable user. I downloaded the atftp-server package and tried to set up my own tftpd jail. I copied over the linked libs to the proper place, the /etc/passwd, /etc/groups, /etc/hosts, /etc/nsswitch.conf, /etc/resolv, /etc/services files. I even created the dev/null device and set up syslog to read fro...

Although the process of porting the LLVM backend to a new architecture looks pretty straightforward (and is very well documented) there's a frontend issue that I'm not clear on: How do we to tell the frontend about implementation-defined constants like integer width? In other words, when llvm-gcc does a promote-to-integer operation, this acts differently if the target architecture

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008, John Regehr wrote: > Although the process of porting the LLVM backend to a new architecture > looks pretty straightforward (and is very well documented) there's a > frontend issue that I'm not clear on: > > How do we to tell the frontend about implementation-defined constants > like integer width? In other words, when llvm-gcc does a >

Thanks for all the replies! I wanted to closely resemble what the CACAO VM[1] backend did with success for a long time: for every CACAO IR instruction, there is a sequence of x86 instructions that get written directly to the executable memory. In CACAO, registers are used while available, then everything is spilled. Relocations are resolved and patched in a second go. It seems this is similar to

...g a very small stack machine primarily for use inside FPGAs and ASICs. This serves roughly the same niche as the above processors, however from my perpsective, my design has a number of advantages. For example, mine has a much smaller minimal configuration, has higher code density, is much more parameterizable, fully supports indirect branches, is FPGA-architecture independent, etc. The main goal, however, is to not just have a shiny new architecture, but to have an entire optimized supporting toolchain. I am hoping to build on LLVM as infrastructure. I don't think I need to sell you all on the r...

Hi Brandon, > Did you have issues with the Verifier complaining about function-local > metadata after moving blocks? Did you find a good solution for this? > It looks like you are moving blocks or instructions with attached metadata to another function. Some metadata is function-specific, so the verifier complains because the instruction/BB and the metadata don't belong to the

...g a very small stack machine primarily for use inside FPGAs and ASICs. This serves roughly the same niche as the above processors, however from my perpsective, my design has a number of advantages. For example, mine has a much smaller minimal configuration, has higher code density, is much more parameterizable, fully supports indirect branches, is FPGA-architecture independent, etc. The main goal, however, is to not just have a shiny new architecture, but to have an entire optimized supporting toolchain. I am hoping to build on LLVM as infrastructure. I don't think I need to sell you all on the r...

Hi Pablo, Your tool sounds really cool. It goes well beyond what I’m trying to do, which is really just extracting blocks of code, serializing and sending the inputs over to another core, running the code over there, and then sending the outputs back to the original caller (like an automatic RPC). So it sounds like most of the things your tool can do would be overkill for my use case. What I’ve

Hey all! We''ve been using Ferret to great success these past six months. But recently we''ved tried adding many new ContentItems (only thing being index by Ferret at the moment), and things came crashing to a halt. ferret gem: 0.10.9 acts_as_ferret plugin (not sure which version) How we''re using the plugin: class ContentItem < ActiveRecord::Base acts_as_ferret

...y complexity in this case. It might be more worth it if there's a similar G_SEXT variant too. The reason for the "I'll come back to this bit" in the apply section is because you've raised an issue I'd forgotten to deal with. The opcodes in the apply section should also be parameterizable. My first thought on that is that there should be a macro-equivalent for apply such as: def : GIExpansion< (defs def:$R, use:$S, imm:$IDX), (apply (select imm:$IDX, (0 [{MIR %R = FOO %S }]), (1 [{MIR %R = BAR %S }]), (2 [{MIR %0 = BAZ %S...

...xity in this case. It might be more worth it if there's a similar G_SEXT variant too. >> The reason for the "I'll come back to this bit" in the apply section is because you've raised an issue I'd forgotten to deal with. The opcodes in the apply section should also be parameterizable. My first thought on that is that there should be a macro-equivalent for apply such as: >> def : GIExpansion< >> (defs def:$R, use:$S, imm:$IDX), >> (apply (select imm:$IDX, >> (0 [{MIR %R = FOO %S }]), >> (1 [{MIR %R = BAR %S }]...

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Quentin Colombet via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi River, > > On Jul 24, 2017, at 2:36 PM, River Riddle <riddleriver at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Quentin, > I appreciate the feedback. When I reference the cost of Target Hooks it's > mainly for maintainability and cost on a target author. We want to keep the

I attempted the following: resources { service: purge => true, noop => true } service { sshd: ensure => running; iptables ensure => running; } And got the following message: notice: Starting configuration run err: Found a bug: uninitialized constant Parse notice: Finished configuration run in 0.47 seconds When I remove the ''resources'' line, everything works

Hi All, I've been working on the GlobalISel combiner recently and I'd like to share the plan for how Combine Rules will be defined in GlobalISel and solicit feedback on it. This email ended up rather long so: TL;DR: We're planning to define GlobalISel Combine Rules using MIR syntax with a few bits glued on to interface with the algorithm and escape into C++ when we need to.

Apologies for delayed joining of this discussion, but I had a few notes from this thread that I really wanted to chime in about. River, I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I do want to start on a semantic issue. In several places in the thread you used the words "we" and "our" to imply that you're not alone in writing this (which is totally fine), but your

2017-07-28 21:58 GMT-07:00 Chris Bieneman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Apologies for delayed joining of this discussion, but I had a few notes > from this thread that I really wanted to chime in about. > > River, > > I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I do want to start on a semantic > issue. In several places in the thread you used the words