similar to: selection of outputs from the function

We have a test that looks like this… define void @array16_store() { ; CHECK-LABEL: array16_store: ; CHECK: ldi [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 204 ; CHECK: ldi [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 170 ; CHECK: sts int.array+3, [[REG2]] ; CHECK: sts int.array+2, [[REG1]] ; CHECK: ldi [[REG1:r[0-9]+]], 187 ; CHECK: ldi [[REG2:r[0-9]+]], 170 ; CHECK: sts int.array+1, [[REG2]] ; CHECK: sts int.array, [[REG1]] ; CHECK: ldi

I’m not sure if it’s truly deterministic. It always gives the same results (so far) on my machine but I’m not sure that’s enough. My guess is it’s probably going to be deterministic on one machine but might well not be deterministic across environments. Like it might give varying results if cross compiled on different hosts, macOS vs intel Linux vs arm vs s390. (Obviously AVR is always a cross

I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do this I added a method that allows pointers to be updated but does not expose any of the other internals of the COD layer. Does anyone have a cleaner way to do this? Has something to facilitate this already been added? Would it be possible to merge this

+Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com>, Master Regent of the Three <No, Two sir> JITs On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 12:31 PM Sean Ogden via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I needed to be able to update stub pointers for hot functions that get > recompiled in a lazy JIT that uses CompileOnDemandLayer. In order to do > this I added a method that allows pointers to

Hi, there I am writing an backend, and I met a problem. We don't have load/store instructions for vector predicate registers(vpr for short). The hardware has 64 vector registers(vr for short) and 8 vector predicate registers. And there is no move instructions between vr and vpr. vr supports many operations, and vpr supports vpror, vprxor, vprand and vprinv operations. A vr has 512 bits, and

Hi Sean, This is great, but it couples LogicalDylib too tightly to CompileOnDemandLayer. Does this alternative implementation of getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol work for you (unfortunately I don't have a local test case for this yet): LogicalModuleResources* getLogicalModuleResourcesForSymbol(const std::string &Name, bool

It does work. I just tested it on my JIT. Thanks! As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? I've noticed a couple of people asking for support for updating stub pointers for functions that are optimized at runtime,

Hi Sean, As for the part that couples them too tightly, would you recommend I just > keep my own specialized version of CompileOnDemandLayer.h that includes > this functionality, or do you have any ideas for a cleaner way to do this? My apologies - I wasn't very clear in my description of the issue. The only sense in which your original patch was tightly coupled was that it had

Implement "pid_t vfork(void)" for parisc. Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle at parisc-linux.org> --- Ugh. vfork() me harder. Kbuild | 2 +- vfork.S | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild b/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild index d57a873..57ca5c2 100644 --- a/usr/klibc/arch/parisc/Kbuild

Hi, I am planning to expanding the pseudo instructions in XXXTargetLowering::EmitInstrWithCustomInserter(), and use temporary virtual registers as operands. If I use virtual registers, do I need to mark them as "early clobber"? I saw that sometimes they marked virtual register as "early clobber" in EmitInstrWithCustomInserter() in MIPS backend. What is the effect of marking a

Hello all, I’m looking into solving an AVR-specific issue and would love to hear peoples thoughts on how to best fix it. Background As you may or may not know, I maintain the in-tree AVR backend, which also happens to be (to the best of my knowledge) the first in-tree backend for a Harvard architecture. In this architecture, code lives inside the ‘program memory’ space (numbered 1), whereas data

Sean, Thank your valuable opinion. I am doing the revision history now. I also review my book and find I made a mistake in LDI instruction. According cpu0, this instruction is move immediate value (for example, 5) to register, not add immediate value to register. I need to fix this for reader's feeling. I am an experienced programmer and I am less-experienced book writer. Please correct me if

I'm a new LLVM developer contributing patches for the AVR platform and I'm trying to understand which parts of the code base are malfunctioning in my case. This LLVM IR... define hidden i32 @setServoAngle3(i32) local_unnamed_addr { entry: %1 = call i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32 %0, i32 119) ret i32 %1 } declare i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32, i32) Is being lowered to this assembly

Hello, I am working on a AVR backend and have a version up and running that will convert LLVM IR code to assembly code for my target. I have written a bunch of instructions from the AVR Instruction Set in AVRInstrInfo.td and not much else. In a simple test case I am attempting to compile (if that is the word you are supposed to use for this operation) test.ll: define i8 @foo(i8 %a, i8 %b) {

Hi, Compiling for both x86 and ARM with llc aborts after this pass. I have a simple helloworld.c program. I am attaching the .ll file created by: *clang -O3 -g -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc* *llvm-dis hello.bc* Thanks again for the response! Shruti On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 19/05/2014 00:54, shruti padmanabha wrote: >

I noticed the following this week. No idea how long its been happening because I have not tested deleting folders hardly at all. Steps to reproduce: 1. Create a folder "NewFolder", click on it in thunderbird so an index dir is created: ls -ldi Maildir/.NewFolder/ 1504062 drwx------ 5 mcdouga9 egrstaff 4096 Nov 16 19:44 Maildir/.NewFolder/ ls -ldi

Hi all, I am working on an llvm backend for a processor with a relative simple instruction set. For small loops, the code that is produced depends heavily on how the loop is specified: The less information we provide to clang, the better the loop code becomes... Any idea how I can learn llvm that we don't have load/store instructions with register index, so that it is more efficient to

Reimplement __common_syscall in assembler. The 32-bit ABI says that the fifth and sixth arguments to the function are passed on the stack, but our syscall ABI says they are passed in %arg4 and %arg5 like the 64-bit ABI. Also, tried to optimize the code slightly by making use of the cmpb delay slot to load the errno return of -1. Signed-off-by: Kyle McMartin <kyle@parisc-linux.org> diff

I have the attached class that I''m writing. The problem that I''m running into is that I can not access the options from the createArray function which get called after the ajax request gets done. I want to move the values of the xml file to an array and story it in the options variable. Can someone explain what I''m doing wrong? var LeaderInfo = Class.create();

Here's the select.frame() function I babbled about before. Suggestions about coding style, etc., are welcome, I feel a bit green at this. select.frame<- function (dfr, ...) { subst.exp <- function(e) { for (i in 2:length(e)) { ei <- e[[i]] if (is.call(ei)) e[[i]] <-