search for: wuerg

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Em�lio Wuerges wrote: > -- > int total = BB->size(); > std::vector<MachineInstr*> positionmap(total); > for (int i = 0; i< total; ++i) > positionmap.push_back(BB->remove(BB->begin())); > for(int i = 0; i< total; ++i) > BB->push_back(positionmap[i]); > --...

Yup, You are right. That exploded. I missed some lines in between. there was a .reserve(total) in the actual code. But, there is some side effect I still could not find. 2007/8/16, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Emílio Wuerges wrote: > > -- > > int total = BB->size(); > > std::vector<MachineInstr*> positionmap(total); > > for (int i = 0; i< total; ++i) > > positionmap.push_back(BB->remove(BB->begin())); > > for(int i = 0; i< total; ++i) > > BB->p...

For adding the nop: TII->insertNoop(*BB, BB->end()); 2007/8/9, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Emílio Wuerges wrote: > > I too believe it should not be complicated. > > But I was not being able to do it. > > Finally, after some thinking (and tinkering), this worked like a charm: > > > > MachineInstr* mi = BB->remove(BB->begin()); > > BB->push_back(mi); >...

...for(int i = 0; i<total; ++i) BB->push_back(BB->remove(BB->begin())); -- And this worked. Flawlessly. Without the error. But this is useless ^_^. Can someone help me to understand this behavior? PS, beware code above, I just tested it, not proven it correct, hehe. 2007/8/9, Emílio Wuerges <wuerges at gmail.com>: > > For adding the nop: > > TII->insertNoop(*BB, BB->end()); > > > 2007/8/9, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Emílio Wuerges wrote: > > > I too believe it should not be...

...tp://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMPass.html#MachineFunctionPass > > -Tanya > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > -- Emilio Wuerges LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070809/db2f6b9d/attachment.html>

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, [ISO-8859-1] Em�lio Wuerges wrote: > I too believe it should not be complicated. > But I was not being able to do it. > Finally, after some thinking (and tinkering), this worked like a charm: > > MachineInstr* mi = BB->remove(BB->begin()); > BB->push_back(mi); > > But, is there a better wa...

...end is a major > problem that should be rectified. > > Mark > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > -- Emilio Wuerges LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brasil

On May 10, 2008, at 8:41 PM, Emílio Wuerges wrote: > Is this thread suposed to be a bad joke? I thought jokes were funny? ;-) -Chris

...already know my way around LLVM but I could use some more experience. I need a way to reorder instructions inside MachineBasicBlocks or MachineFunctions. I've been searching for it but I have not found an example in the code yet. Can someone point me where I should look for? ty, -- Emilio Wuerges LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070808/ce471058/attachment.html>

Chris Lattner wrote: > If you'd prefer to use GCC, go for it. No one is forcing > you to use LLVM. No, we would prefer to use LLVM, but a missing part in LLVM makes it difficult. It would be wonderful if this missing part could be supplied. > You are seriously ignorant of what LLVM is all about. > Please go inform yourself. Alright, I read some more on llvm.org and it

> I need a way to reorder instructions inside MachineBasicBlocks or > MachineFunctions. > I've been searching for it but I have not found an example in the code yet. For MachineBasicBlocks, check out this doc: http://llvm.org/doxygen/classllvm_1_1MachineBasicBlock.html I believe its basically the same as basic blocks in that you can manipulate the instruction list. Otherwise, you

...! bb19 nop or %g0, 1, %l0 Here both the "ba" and the "nop", that are the 3rd and 2nd last operations of this snipet, are not reachable. Could I express myself good enougth? Is it possible to do what I want? Do you know what might be the problem? -- Emilio Wuerges LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brasil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20070904/e40c72d6/attachment.html>

Anyone else interested in an AVR backend? If so, for what members of the AVR family? If we do a port, likely it'll support only the ATmegas. John

I have a client who might well make use of an AVR32 port, but I suspect that machine is very different than the one you are currently examining. shap On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 12:38 -0600, John Regehr wrote: > Anyone else interested in an AVR backend? > > If so, for what members of the AVR family? If we do a port, likely it'll > support only the ATmegas. > > John >

...vm.cs.uiuc.edu >> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev > -- Emilio Wuerges LAPS - Laboratorio de Automacao de Projeto de Sistemas UFSC - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina Brasil

Hi Greg, I understand your frustration. I've been on this mailing list for a little over a year hoping that by osmosis I could get a a better handle on writing a back end for LLVM. Although I feel more comfortable with the nomenclature, I still do not have a clue as to how to begin (actually I do, but it sounds more dramatic saying it this way). I've read the documentation, but

...front-end should be a much lower priority than delivering a COMPLETE backend. Another C compiler is not needed. GCC and MSVC already do that job, and you won't supplant them. The thing that is really needed is in accordance with the essence of LLVM -- a complete backend solution. Emilio Wuerges wrote: > Is this thread suposed to be a bad joke? That is a very unprofessional response to my legitimate questions and concerns, and my good-faith attempts to ASSIST the LLVM project by providing some constructive criticism and feedback (and possibly contributions later). Terence Parr wr...

As we've already seen, David Chisnall prefers hacking LLVM over GCC (see http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=1215438): "In contrast, every time I look at the GCC code, it takes two people to prevent me from clawing my eyeballs out." I'm sorry to report that so-far I have had the opposite experience. Some years ago, I ported binutils (via CGEN) and GCC to an