similar to: [LLVMdev] The Great Tool Renaming, Part 2 (and hopefully last)

Howdy, oh LLVMers! As you may or may not have noticed, the LLVM tool `as' has a problematic name that conflicts with the standard system assembler. This poses a problem for programs such as `gcc' which searches the path for a suitable assembler -- it may find the LLVM assembler instead of the native version, causing compilation errors. Thus, I am undertaking the project of renaming LLVM

Ms Brukman, Thanks for your reply.Just clarifying my question.I actually wanted to randomize the static layout of function code in the executable file.Sorry for writing in confusing manner. T Misha Brukman <brukman at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 02:12:22PM -0700, Tanu Sharma wrote: > By randomization of functions I mean the manner in whch they are > called , so

Hi Misha, Files downloaded. Thank you very much. Henrik. From: Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 11:17:25 -0600 On Sat, Nov 06, 2004 at 09:35:47AM +0100, Henrik Bach wrote: > Would some one be so kind to catch the output when configuring and building > the CFE together with the log files produced? http://misha.brukman.net/code/llvm/logs/ The

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 18:36:08 -0500 Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section > > "Getting Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading

It works. Thanks! However, although the configuration and installation process doesn't report any error/warning, the llvmc cannot work. It just says: Unexpected unknown exception occurred :( Do you have any clue about that? Feng -----Original Message----- From: Misha Brukman [mailto:brukman at uiuc.edu] Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 2:00 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Cc:

Sigh... take it up with Microsoft. On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 12:06:36 -0500 Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 09:38:44AM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > Here's the patch to Signals.cpp. assuming that stdio.h is acceptable > > (can't imagine it won't work). > > We prefer #include <cstdio>, since this is C++ after all. :) >

On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:46:18PM -0400, Shukang Zhou wrote: > Thanks Misha. I tried the "gcc -dM -E /tmp/file.c | grep __sparcv9" > but there was no output. Maybe this is the probelm, I do have > > CXX = g++ -mcpu=v9 > CC := gcc -mcpu=v9 > > in the Makefile.config. Do I need to add -m64 as well? Thanks. Just run the test that I mentioned before: > On Thu, 7

Hi Misha, Thanks for your answer I was doing this: ======================== BasicBlock *BBlock = new BasicBlock("entry", MyFunc); ... Value *Zero = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 0); Value *UZero = ConstantUInt::get(Type::UIntTy, 0); MallocInst* mi = new MallocInst( STyStru ); mi->setName("tmp.0"); BBlock->getInstList().push_back( mi );

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section "Getting > Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading of the remainder of > the page does give the correct path. http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/* is a copy of

I'm sorry, I did not completely understand your email, let me clarify my response. On Thu, Oct 07, 2004 at 06:46:18PM -0400, Shukang Zhou wrote: > Thanks Misha. I tried the "gcc -dM -E /tmp/file.c | grep __sparcv9" > but there was no output. Maybe this is the probelm, I do have > > CXX = g++ -mcpu=v9 > CC := gcc -mcpu=v9 > > in the Makefile.config. Do I need

What's different about code that's been mem2reg'd from straight front end code, or anything that mem2reg hasn't been run on? PHINODES! It appears to be crashing when I try to cast a Value* that's really a BB* (from the PHInode operands) to a User*, insteresting since I am dyn_casting. I just caught this on cerr though (printing out what the Value* was each time). Let me

1. Re: LLVM optmization (Bill Wendling) Hi, The IR is not wrong. I said that the assembler generated by MSVC is quicker. We can see that the for loop, in the TESTE function, is done without jump's in the MSVC and with jumps in LLVM. I think thats the point. If we don't use threads, the result is the same. My test were done with one billion interactions in the for loop. The MSVC

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 10:52:28PM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 22:42, Misha Brukman wrote: > > > This would be the right one, so maybe if we ask Reid nicely, he'll > > do it (as he maintains the Cygwin nightly tester). > > I haven't used Net News since its signal-to-noise ratio dropped below > my tolerance level (circa 1995). However, if

Really JIT isn't my goal. I prefer use a native execution engine; and ok, I don't need save the generated Module so it ever lives in memory, so if LLVM doesn't generate relocatable code it's fine for me. About the reentrant lacks of LLVM, I can convert my own code - which build the Module - into a critical section so I think it is enough; but I need to know if several independent

I can confirm that both are compiled properly: A) PHINode *PN; for (BasicBlock::iterator I = H->begin(); PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(I); I++) .... B) for (BasicBlock::iterator I = H->begin; isa<PHINode>(I); I++) { PHINode *PN = cast<PHINode(I); .... } I'll make a patch for whatever solution do you prefer (this problem is a showstopper for more than a dozen

On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 11:39:27AM -0800, Reid Spencer wrote: > Actually, Misha, that won't work. Sorry, Reid, but I think it will, for the following reason: I don't really know what the -c (lowercase) option does, but install says it's ignored anyway, so that's irrelevant for GNU install. We're talking about the -C option (uppercase). > The -C option is used directly

Paolo, I'll supply you with a new bleeding edge binary as soon as possible... Henrik >From: Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> >Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2004 09:55:52 -0500 > >On Fri, Oct 08, 2004 at 12:51:10PM +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > > Some problems... (or I'm missing something...) > >Yes, you are missing recent CVS commits. Henrik supplied you with the

OOps.. I overlooked :-) Thanks Tanu Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 12:18:33PM -0800, Tanu Sharma wrote: > This is exactly what i m trying : > > opt -load /home/tsharma/ankur/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello /dev/null Well, you're not saving the output of your pass, it's going to /dev/null. Try: opt -load ... < input.bc >

Karl, I think you meant to cc the llvmdev list on this. Thank you for a more detailed explanation, it's much clearer to me now. I agree that making the execution of .bc files more transparent would make it more useable as a stand-alone binary format on Unix-like systems and adding programmable support to changing the #! line would prevent much of user error involved in modifying the run