similar to: Parsing C header files

The attached patch includes no test-case and isn't consistent with the rest of the file: - constants should be on the right hand side of comparisons - the braces around your single line 'if' aren't needed. On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 2:39 PM, James Courtier-Dutton < james.dutton at gmail.com> wrote: > I attach a patch that fixes this bug. Applies to llvm 3.4svn > >

Hi, I am looking at the "LLVMOpInfoCallback GetOpInfo" callback. Example 1 GOOD: 41 c6 84 24 16 04 00 00 0c : movb $12, 1046(%r12) Makes calls to the callback with: Offset = 0x4, Size = 0x4 <- Octets: 16 04 00 00 Offset = 0x8, Size = 0x1 <- Octets: 0c That was correct. Example 2 BAD: c7 45 98 a1 ff ff ff : movl $4294967201, -104(%rbp) Makes calls to the callback

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info> > To: "James Courtier-Dutton" <james.dutton at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Bill Wendling" <isanbard at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" > <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Saturday,

Test case attached. It is not a test case that works within the llvm test-suite yet, but it does demonstrate the problem. I would like some advice on how to modify this test_case so that it can be added to the automated llvm test cases. On 15 September 2013 23:02, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > The attached patch includes no test-case and isn't consistent

Hi, I think this is a very simple question, and it must just be missing something. I am looking for find out how to assign a constant integer value to the variable in llvm ir. The following returns 12, and %var2 = 12. ; ModuleID = 't.c' target datalayout =

Hi, I have the following program (attached) I produces, using the llvm-c API, this: ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' define i32 @test2() { EntryBlock: ret i32 3 } But, I want it to produce this: ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' define i32 @test2() { EntryBlock: %1 = add i32 1, 2 ret i32 %1 } I.e. With the "add" in there. llvm appears to be doing some optimization on

On Mar 15, 2013 10:53 PM, "Óscar Fuentes" <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > > James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton at gmail.com> writes: > > > I think this is a very simple question, and it must just be missing something. > > > > I am looking for find out how to assign a constant integer value to > > the variable in llvm ir. > > > > The

I attach a patch that fixes this bug. Applies to llvm 3.4svn Please commit it please. Kind Regards James On 13 September 2013 17:46, James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi, > > I am looking at the "LLVMOpInfoCallback GetOpInfo" callback. > > Example 1 GOOD: > 41 c6 84 24 16 04 00 00 0c : movb $12, 1046(%r12) > > Makes

On 7 May 2012 16:31, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 5/7/12 5:47 AM, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am writing a decompiler. I was wondering if some of LLVM could be >> used for a decompiler. >> There are several stages in the decompiler process. >> 1) Take binary and create a higher level representation of it.

Hi, I am trying to use LLVM to generate C (partly, Intel AVX) code to test some abstractions. Apparently, most of the documentation is related to generating LLVM-IR. Are there any tools to do this? (I have generated AST from these abstractions. I want to generate C code from it). Thank you! :) PS: If this is a wrong mailinglist, help me with the right one. -- Regards, *Aditya Atluri,* *USA.*

Hi, I know most compilers go from AST to CFG. I am writing a decompiler, so I was wondering if anyone knew of any documents describing how best to get from CFG to AST. The decompiler project is open source. https://github.com/jcdutton/libbeauty The decompiler already contains a disassembler and a virtual machine resulting in an annotated CFG. It uses information gained from using a virtual

Hi, I have the x86 SBB instruction. how should I represent this in LLVM IR. (as part of a decompiler from binary to LLVM IR) Pre-conditions: %eax = 0xffffffff %edx = 0xffffffff %carry = 1 SBB %eax, %edx // %edx is the destination doing %edx = %edx - (%eax + carry) JC jump_destination1 // If the Carry flag is set, jump to jump_destination1 How do I represent this correctly in LLVM

On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 2:34 AM James Courtier-Dutton via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Did this work ever get done? There was a long thread about it back in 2015. > > I wish to use IRBuilder. > Is there any documentation? > How do I use the singular pointer type in GEP, LOAD, STORE instructions? > Sorry, no, the work is not complete - for

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:09 AM, James Courtier-Dutton <james.dutton at gmail.com> wrote: > My guess is that this is a missed optimization, but in real life, all > projects i have worked fix this in the C or C++ code using macros that > change what instructions are used based on target platform and its > endedness. One reason for writing code like this, i.e. explicitly spelling

Hi James, On 13/05/13 00:25, James Courtier-Dutton wrote: > Hi, > > I have the following program (attached) > > I produces, using the llvm-c API, this: > ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' > > define i32 @test2() { > EntryBlock: > ret i32 3 > } > > But, I want it to produce this: > ; ModuleID = './llvm-test.bc' > > define i32 @test2()

If what you are saying is that you know the array of i32 will always be 10 entries, make the function use a constant limit=10 to the loop. I.e Make the loop limit a constant and not a variable. On 11 October 2013 18:27, Matthieu Dubet <maattdd at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm creating a small function in LLVM which gets as a parameter an i32* > (this function is called

Hi, I am looking to decompile x86 ASM to LLVM IR. The original C is this: int test61 ( unsigned value ) { int ret; if (value < 1) ret = 0x40; else ret = 0x61; return ret; } It compiles with GCC -O2 to (rather cleverly removing any branches): 0000000000000000 <test61>: 0: 83 ff 01 cmp $0x1,%edi 3:

Hi, James, Thanks for your reply. I do not think it is always true, that "mul then add" is faster than "add then mul". For example, A small immediate can be directly encoded in the instruction, but it becomes a larger one after a multiplication, which has to be loaded from the constant pool (extra memory access). So I wonder, is it possile to prevent it, via changes

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Anton Korobeynikov" <anton at korobeynikov.info>, "Bill Wendling" <isanbard at gmail.com>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2013

Thanks for your replies. Working on the lfort compiler would certainly be an interesting project for me for this GSoC. I have studied lfort repository and commits, and I see that it has a lot of stuff for C/C++, am I correct that this is a fork of Clang? If this is correct, I wonder why this approach was chosen instead of starting out from scratch - is it because Clang already has a lot of code