similar to: Adding comments to 'MachineInstruction'

There is no generic mechanism as far as I know. You can look at AsmPrinter.cpp/emitComments() to see what situations trigger comments at the moment. - Matthias > On Feb 3, 2018, at 4:40 AM, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > When I am constructing sequences of instructions during custom lowering, I would like to be able to also add a

We'll be doing something similar for our OpenVMS port.  Right now I'm using "AsmStreamer->GetCommentOS()" and writing to the stream at the assembler level but that gets aligned on a right-side column (the column is hardcoded) and you have to be in verbose mode.  So if you come up with something or have a quick design, post it so perhaps we can leverage each other's work. 

Thanks for the quick answer Bruce. So far as I can tell (from a quick read), this is really for integrated assemblers/disassemblers - but we use an external assembler. When invoking clang we would provide ‘-mcpu=chip_v1’ or ‘-mcpu=chip_v2’, and the mnemonic ‘LD32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v1’, while ‘LD.32’ is only valid when compiling for ‘chip_v2’. But I will study the

Cool this is better than I expected - I never thought about the YAML support. And the document reference is really very good. Thanks Francis, MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Francis Visoiu Mistrih [mailto:francisvm at yahoo.com] Sent: 05 February 2018 21:43 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Adam Nemet

Hi LLVM Dev, I have an old problem that I've wanted to clean-up for some time. Our chip has gone through a number of iterations in the past few years, but with each revision there have been changes to some of the mnemonics for instructions. These are mostly very simple, for example we had a 32-bit load from memory instruction named 'LD32' in one version of the chip, but for a

Yes, it looks like passing ‘EnableVec’ and ‘EnableSLPVec’ to ‘Args.hasFlag’ should be replaced with ‘false’ and then it has the expected behaviour. MartinO From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev Sent: 01 March 2018 18:02 To: 'Richard Smith' <richard at metafoo.co.uk> Cc: 'Clang Dev'

Hi Martin, On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > $ git branch --list > * master > martino By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a" will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70". If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will

I would like to be able to emit a list of functions by name and their fixed stack reservation size information, so that a programmer can gauge how much stack they are likely to need in tightly constrained embedded systems. Despite the rich number of options, the only option I can find that is even relatively close is: -warn-stack-size=<uint> Is there some existing way of getting this

Thanks Tim, Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can implement it properly. At the moment I am looking at changes I need to 'MachineBasicBlock::ReplaceUsesOfBlockWith'. It is most likely that I need to handle the issue in a different way, but the change I need works here for my target for the time being, but breaks X86 which I also build for

Is there is minimum required version for GCC to build LLVM from the head revision? I have GCC v4.9.3, but 'Tools/sancov/sancov.cc' won't build because 'std::to_string' does not exist. When running CMake it did not flag GCC v4.9.3 as too old, and it is passing the '-std=gnu++11' option, but apparently this version of GCC is not fully C++ 11 compliant, or at least

There's always the hypothetical template<typename T> llvm::Triple giveMeATripleDamnYou(const T &); Just keep adding implementations until you stop needing to. ;-) Cheers. Tim. On 1 January 2018 at 17:00, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can

Hi David, When I use CMake to configure, ‘zlib’ and its header are detected - I build on CentOS 6.5 or CentOS 7. Since I run CMake from the command-line, I tried added ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=0’ and ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=1’ (using ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=ON’ does not seem to work). Both ‘clang’ and ‘llvm-profdata’ (and all other tools and utilities) are configured and built together, in any event,

Yep, done that already, but it is not at all a good fit when the device is inside a drone flying around ;-) What we do have, is a fake file-system that keeps everything in memory, and after the profiling is completed we offload it for analysis. I guess I was hoping that there would be a more robust system agnostic implementation. Use of ‘mmap’ is similarly constraining. MartinO

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly?

Thanks :) From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] Sent: 14 April 2017 12:53 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Options for timing passes in LLVM? Refer to `llc` document [1], it would be `--time-passes`. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llc.html HTH,

This is a pretty trivial question, but why are triple-slash comments ('///') sometime used instead of double-slash comments ('//'). I'm sure that there is a good reason and a convention involved, but I do not know what it is. Thanks, MartinO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers'

We discovered what is happening. SDAGCombiner essentially looks at various combinations of nodes to do with vectors, and when it can, it creates a vector shuffle. The problem is, that our vector shuffle lowering builds new trees with vector element, or vector sub-vector insert sequences. The generic DAGCombiner, reconstructs these into a new shuffle, and so the loop continues - we reduce it,

Are there any updates on when LLVM v4.0 is to be released? Just curious, MartinO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170301/0811ce97/attachment.html>

Hi Martin, On 25 September 2017 at 20:35, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Are you building a Debug or Release version of the compiler? It seems that in Release builds of LLVM 5.0 the dump() implementation is absent, although the method is available in the interface. This is plain wrong in my view. If the dump() has to be removed then it should not be present