search for: rushg

Maybe it's because I've got a lot of two machine operand instructions and have to rely on the tied-to constraint, but I'm seeing a lot of dead reg-to-reg copy instructions, e.g.: ori $3, $3, 0 (Cell SPU's version of reg-to-reg copy, looks a lot like PPC, no?) Is there any way I can detect when this occurs, or is there code where this detection takes place in the target to which

On 1/18/07, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote: > Is there any way I can detect when this occurs, or is there code > where this detection takes place in the target to which I can > refer? have you implemented InstInfo::isMoveInstr to recognize those? The register allocator uses that to find copies it can remove. A...

On 11/27/06, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote: > Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > >>the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current > >>version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in > >>mind. > > > > I can confirm, that tailor converts LLV...

I know that Al Stone has compiled llvm-gcc4 successfully and I can report the same. The problem I consistently run into is that llvm-gcc ends up producing native format output; it does not produce bytecode, nor does it invoke gccas or gccld. I'm using the latest svn, and my configure args are: --prefix=/work/scottm/llvm-cfrontend/obj/../i686-pc-linux-gnu \

I don't think llvm-gcc4 uses gccas or gccld, but it can emit bytecode if you give it the --emit-llvm option: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c -o foo.bc foo.c On 8/14/06, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote: > I know that Al Stone has compiled llvm-gcc4 successfully and I can > report the same. The problem I consistently run into is that llvm-gcc > ends up producing native format output; it does not produce bytecode, > nor does it invoke gccas or gccld. > > I'm...

thomas weidner wrote: > Hello, > > i want to implement a common lisp subset using llvm for fun. Out of curiousity, for which CL implementation is this targeted? sbcl? Or something you're rolling? The reason why I ask is that I expressed an outrageous opinion at Supercomputing back in November, to wit, that CL is probably the best language suited for today's multicore

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >>the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current >>version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in >>mind. > > I can confirm, that tailor converts LLVM CVS with all history preserved > to mercurial repository without any visible troubles. I'm not sure if I just took HEAD or converted the

Hello, Scott. > the official cutover. Granted, you might need darcs to pull the current > version out of its repo, since it was originally designed with darcs in > mind. I can confirm, that tailor converts LLVM CVS with all history preserved to mercurial repository without any visible troubles. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint

Hi, On 12/11/06, Scott Michel <scottm at rushg.aero.org> wrote: > Here's where my issue about DTRT with llvm-gcc (or whatever your prefix > to llvm tools happens to be) resurfaces. I'm keenly aware that Chris > thinks that one really ought to be careful with having llvm-gcc emit > bytecode. But frankly, if that's the...

Hello, i want to implement a common lisp subset using llvm for fun. This requires the use of a garbage collector. I read the docs, but many things are still unclear to me. 1. how are collectors supposed to find all living objects? there is llvm.gcroot for marking objects on the stack,but how do collectors crawl heap objects? I did not see a way to provide custom mark functions. Are

Reid Spencer wrote: > Chandler/Domagoj, > > On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:53 -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >>Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact >>that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC >>frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system >>linker, which grabs the executable from

Scott Michel <scottm <at> rushg.aero.org> writes: > Out of curiousity, for which CL implementation is this targeted? sbcl? > Or something you're rolling? I wanted to roll out my own lisp, and maybe use some library code from existing lisps (think of loop or format). Adding an LLVM backend to an existing lisp impleme...

Chandler/Domagoj, On Sun, 2006-12-10 at 10:53 -0500, Chandler Carruth wrote: > Unless I'm missing something, the problem lies directly with the fact > that you are trying to do a link-stage operation with the GCC > frontend. GCC, by default, probably runs "ld" or another system > linker, which grabs the executable from binutils. This linker hasn't > been modified

Bram Adams wrote: > Hi, > > Op 14-aug-06, om 09:29 heeft Reid Spencer het volgende geschreven: > >> >>> Apparently, %llvmgccdir% and %llvmcc1% are not recognized as a useful >>> variable by the llvmc configuration parser. >> >> >> Actually, they are. See tools/llvmc/ConfigurationDriver.cpp around line >> 304. Also, they are recognized

Reid Spencer wrote: > On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 08:55 -0700, Scott Michel wrote: > >>Regarding llvmc there is one small problem: with the gcc 4.0 frontend, >>"-emit-llvm" needs to be added to all of the translator.command lines. >>Not entirely sure how to conditionalize that in the configuration files. > > > Hi Scott, > > What is needed is a

There should also be a large notice in 40 point font and bold that says, "gcc4 does not produce byte code by default: you must use the -emit-llvm flag to get LLVM byte code." Erick Tryzelaar wrote: > Hello, > > It looks like the "Getting Started" is missing some info about the gcc > 4.0 frontend. Since it doesn't follow the setup of the cfrontend/gcc3.4 >

Devang Patel wrote: > > On Aug 23, 2006, at 7:00 PM, Emil Mikulic wrote: > >> Where -is- that documented? >> >> The only reason I know about it is because of how many times it's come >> up on the list. =) > > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html ? > > ... > Example with llvm-gcc4 > First, create a simple C file, name it

Erick Tryzelaar wrote: >> It's a "least surprise" issue. If gcc3 produces bytecode directly, why >> did the gcc4 driver create such a large departure from original, >> expected functionality? It's a rhetorical question, BTW. >> > > I actually know this one :) I believe the powers that be decided that > having a gcc-compatible interface was

Anyone run across __fixunsdfti relocation problems while building the llvm gcc frontend on an AMD-64 box under linux? For some reason, TImode is turned on but the bootstrap xgcc compiler complains that 128-bit integers are not supported. Any clues on a workaround?

Reid Spencer wrote: > This is an libpath problem. When xgcc runs it wants to dynamically linkthe libgcc.so. > When you run it from the command line it will find yoursystem libgcc.so (which works) Not really. For systems that have gcc 4.2 natively installed, like the current Debian testing, the compiler gets GCC_4.2.0 version errors. It isn't easy to work around b/c xgcc wants to link