similar to: storing MBB MCSymbol in custom section

Dear Mr. Northover, Thank you for the quick reply. You are correct about the address-mode operands :) . I guess an important detail left out was that the basic block (call it A) that wants to calculate the address of the target stationary trampoline basic block (call it B) will be moved around in memory during run-time. Our earlier solution, before the feature was implemented to move around (A)

Right now MC is optimized for emitting assembly, but as Rafael pointed out to me over IRC the optimized path should be emitting object files. This WIP patch moves MCSymbolData into MCSymbol.h and makes it a field inside MCSymbol. This eliminates a pointer from MCSymbolData back to MCSymbol, the DenseMap<const MCSymbol *, MCSymbolData *> in MCAssembler, and converts the iplist in

Hi all, When emitting GC information, it can be very useful to emit the debug location of a GC point, represented as a MCSymbol. Infortunately I haven't found any API (JIT and codegen) where I can get from a MCSymbol to a DebugLoc. Does that interface exist? If not, I plan on committing a small change in the GC code where the debug location is passed to the constructor of a GC point. Patch

On Sep 12, 2010, at 9:44 AM, nicolas geoffray wrote: > Hi all, > > When emitting GC information, it can be very useful to emit the debug location of a GC point, represented as a MCSymbol. Infortunately I haven't found any API (JIT and codegen) where I can get from a MCSymbol to a DebugLoc. Does that interface exist? If not, I plan on committing a small change in the GC code where

Hi Dean, I have a question for 32-bit platforms. I see in the code that you used the following in compiler-rt/trunk/lib/xray/xray_interface_internal.h : struct XRaySledEntry { uint64_t Address; uint64_t Function; unsigned char Kind; unsigned char AlwaysInstrument; unsigned char Padding[14]; // Need 32 bytes }; And the peer code in llvm/trunk/lib/Target/X86/X86MCInstLower.cpp : void

I have been looking over AsmPrinter::EmitLinkage (around line 195 of lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter\AsmPrinter.cpp) and it seems that its implementation will vary quite a bit depending on what object file format is in use (MachO, ELF, or COFF). Would it make sense to delegate the implementation to a specialized object from current the object file format? I am tempted to make it the MCAsmInfo

Hi, I'm with a team using 16-bit bytes for an out-of-tree target. The AsmPrinter framework's implementation of the DWARF debugging format is not very good at distinguishing between target-sized bytes (which is the more common use) and 8-bit-bytes. The DWARF standard itself seems not very good in this regard, actually. So we have had to hack our way around this. I.e., at some call-sites of

On May 10, 2010, at 6:46 PM, Nathan Jeffords wrote: > I have been looking over AsmPrinter::EmitLinkage (around line 195 of lib\CodeGen\AsmPrinter\AsmPrinter.cpp) and it seems that its implementation will vary quite a bit depending on what object file format is in use (MachO, ELF, or COFF). > Would it make sense to delegate the implementation to a specialized object from current the object

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > This probably needs to be slightly tweaked to work with mainline.  I don't see anything objectionable, but I think Daniel needs to review this one. Updated patch to work with mainline. http://github.com/Bigcheese/llvm-mirror/commit/d19a4c82c18afc4830c09b70f02d162292231c94 - Michael Spencer

Attached is an example of how to reproduce the issue. It uses a C file that happens to has a bunch of switch statements which are encoded as jump tables, giving us data-in-code. Usage: To build object files with clang via the -integrated-as versus via GCC: $ export NDK_DIR=<my_ndk_dir> $ export LLVM_DIR=<my_llvm_bin_dir> $ make To test that the generated objects contain the same

I am attempting to implement a minor loop strength reduction optimization for targets that support compare and jump fusion, specifically TTI::canMacroFuseCmp(). My approach might be wrong; however, I am soliciting the idea for feedback, so that I can implement this correctly. My plan is to add a Supplemental LSR formula to LoopStrengthReduce.cpp that optimizes the following case, but perhaps

Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) The patch is offset from HEAD. The patch is a hack which removes use of the MCSymbol::isDefined(...) method, as its use happens to break in the exception JIT context; both in

> cmpq %rbx, %r14 > jne .LBB0_1 > > LLVM can perform compare-jump fusion, it already does in certain cases, but > not in the case above. We can remove the cmp above if we were to perform > the following transformation: Do you mean branch-fusion (https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/macro-operation_fusion)? Is there any more limitation why these two or not fused? > -----Original

The log message for revision 122213 says: > Change the X86 backend to stop using the evil ADDC/ADDE/SUBC/SUBE nodes (which > their carry depenedencies with MVT::Flag operands) and use clean and beautiful > EFLAGS dependences instead. (MVT::Flag has since been renamed to MVT::Glue.) That revision made bug 8404 go away. Am I right in thinking that one of the problems with MVT::Glue is

Hi all, So, MCJIT is working with vmkit, that's great. However, I need to retrieve the GCModuleInfo and the MachineCodeEmitter used during the compilation process. And I don't know how I should proceed? I'm trying to understand how they are preserved with the old jit, but I have to say that I'm a little bit lost because I haven't a global view of the code... So, any help would

No, I don't. But I’m sure it is not optimized because I can see this variable in the final binary file emitted. Do you mean if I don’t refer to this variable in the front end, then I can’t see it in the backend? (although it’s in the final binary file) Thank you! 2019年1月19日(土) 2:00 <paul.robinson at sony.com>: > Do you have a use of the new variable as well? If not, it might be

Hi, I am new to llvm. I create a global variable called "test_llvm_var" in the front end function pass like this: new GlobalVariable(*m, tmp->getType(), true, llvm::GlobalValue::ExternalLinkage, tmp, "test_llvm_var"); where tmp is a function. Then I tried to access this global variable in the back end MachineFunctionPass like this: MCContext&

Hi Chris, The MCSymbol r98459 patch of llvm seems to have broken the ExceptionDemo example. As the example is dying in the associated personality's first unwind search phase, which happens to have no language specific context, and is returning a _URC_CONTINUE_UNWIND, I believe the issue is generic and not specific to the example. However I'm not sure why then this wasn't seen in one

Hi everybody. I found that there are some problems with symbol location in AsmParser. 1. We need to know where symbol was declared. 2. We need to know where symbol was defined first time. There are two ways: 1. Add helper table to the parser with additional symbol info. But it takes additional memory consumption. 2. Add user tag (void*) for MCSymbol object. As I understood MCSymbol can live

Hi Garrison, Does r101453 fix this? -Chris On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:35 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: > Ok, I've isolated the recent additions that cause the issue and supplied a patch which is NOT meant > to be applied, but instead solely exists for identification purposes for those who know what they are doing. :-) > The patch is offset from HEAD. > > The patch is a hack which