Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecode Format"
2004 Jan 21
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecode Format
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 08:25:23AM -0800, Robert Mykland wrote:
> I'm the guy who is working on the LLVM bytecode documentation. The
> document I have at present just supports the bytecodes my code
> generator processes, though, which is far from all of them. As I get
> farther along with my code generator I expect I'll get to the point
> where everything kind of fits
2006 Oct 26
0
[LLVMdev] Some basic questions about LLVM version 1.8 bytecode format
Hi Robert,
On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 16:00 -0600, Robert Mykland wrote:
> I generated LLVM bytecode for a "hello world!" program just to get the
> basic bytecode structure. I have a few questions about the global
> info module and the global constants module where there have
> apparently been changes since 1.4.
Okay.
> I would be happy to collect these differences and do
2006 Oct 25
2
[LLVMdev] Some basic questions about LLVM version 1.8 bytecode format
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I generated LLVM bytecode for a "hello world!" program just to get the
basic bytecode structure. I have
2003 Aug 26
3
[LLVMdev] Seemingly ambiguous parameter lists
LLVMers,
And while we're on the subject to the type definitions table, what's the
difference between
0e 07 01 00
function returning Int ( Void )? Function returning Int ( ... )?
and
0e 07 00
Function returning Int ()
I'm guessing the former really is a function returning Int ( ... ), but how
is the callee supposed to decode the parameter list? I'm an old callee and
I
2004 Aug 16
2
[LLVMdev] Bytecode file bugs / doc bugs
Dear Reid and Chris,
I thought I should send this to the list in case anyone else is struggling
to interpret bytecode files with the new docs.
(1) First a bug I already mentioned to Reid. Unlike the other new
module headers module 0x01 still uses the old 32-bit and 32-bit format
instead of the new 5-bit and 27-bit format. Thus the first module in the
file will be 0x00000001 followed by
2004 Aug 17
2
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecodes & docs
Reid,
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
A value of zero now means zero literal for everything except labels,
right? There is kind of a vague reference to this in the 1.0 -> 1.1
section I believe. You might want to make this clearer when talking about
values in the body of the document.
--> A comment on this: if a value of zero were never used for labels, that
would make me happy,
2004 Aug 24
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 06:43 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Robert Mykland wrote:
> > >In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
> > >in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth special casing this
> > >though? Considering that we handle 8-bit strings specially already, there
> > >are not a ton of 8-bit
2003 Aug 26
1
[LLVMdev] Question: Bytecode Representation of Type Definitions Table
Distinguished LLVM Creators,
I've been looking through the bytecode representation of the type
definition table and had a few questions about it. There's an enum in
Types.h that defines all bytecodes that represent the primitive types and a
few other necessary things:
0 = 0x00 = Void
1 = 0x01 = Bool
2 = 0x02 = UByte
3 = 0x03 = SByte
4 = 0x04 = UShort (16 bits)
5 = 0x05 =
2004 Aug 24
4
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:46, Robert Mykland wrote:
> At 06:43 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >I don't understand what you're getting at here. You can change char to
> >default to unsigned right now with llvm-gcc -funsigned-char. I don't
> >understand how that would change anything to be more useful though.
>
> Well, in the old days, char strings were
2005 Mar 31
1
[LLVMdev] Bytecode to C
Hi,
There may be an obvious answer for this question but, how do you convert from bytecode to C?
llvm-dis is no longer doing this taks with the -c flag
Thanks
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
2004 Aug 26
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 09:37 PM 8/23/2004, you wrote:
>On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 19:46, Robert Mykland wrote:
> > At 06:43 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> > >I don't understand what you're getting at here. You can change char to
> > >default to unsigned right now with llvm-gcc -funsigned-char. I don't
> > >understand how that would change anything to be more useful
2004 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] Can't get llvmg++ to work
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:52:28 -0700
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:07, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> > OK. I've built the front end without any heartaches, but I did
> > encountered the following glitches:
> >
> > The documentation of --with-llvmgccdir is a bit ambiguous. I had to
> > try several paths
2004 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 02:05 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote:
>Robert Mykland wrote:
>>Dear Chris and Reid:
>
>Hi Robert.
>
>>Some other random ideas I've had as I've been sifting through the new
>>bytecode format. Please let me know what you think.
>>1) ANSI C allows for char to default to unsigned char. This is I guess
>>not how it normally is in GCC. If char defaulted
2004 Oct 20
5
[LLVMdev] Re: LLVM Compiler Infrastructure Tutorial
I'm CC'ing the llvm-dev list because other people are more knowledgeable
about the bytecode format/encoding than I am. Please follow-up the
replies to the list.
On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:27:53AM -0700, Yiping Fan wrote:
> We also want to extend the llvm instructions/intrinsic
> functions/types/passes to support our high-level synthesis for
> hardware. First of all, we want to
2004 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] Can't get llvmg++ to work
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
2004 Aug 24
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 06:14 PM 8/20/2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > > > I think the original plan was to have multiple modules in them but
> this
> > > seems
> > > > to have gone by the wayside. The result of linking two (or more)
> > > modules is a
> > > > single module so except in some really bizare corner cases the need for
> > > > multiple
2004 Aug 21
4
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Robert Mykland wrote:
> >In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
> >in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth special casing this
> >though? Considering that we handle 8-bit strings specially already, there
> >are not a ton of 8-bit constants with value >= 128.
>
> I'd rather that they not be
2004 Oct 20
0
[LLVMdev] Re: LLVM Compiler Infrastructure Tutorial
Yeah. We need to have more extra fields in the instruction. Fo example,
during high-level synthesis, we must schedule an instruction to
a certain control step (or cycle), and bind it to be execute on a certain
functional unit, etc.
Besides the in-memory exchange of the information, we also want on-disk
exchange. That introduces the write-out/parse-in problem.
Thanks
----- Original Message -----
2004 Aug 24
1
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 06:08 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote:
>So, to be explicit, what you're advocating is that:
>
>Even Slot Number:
> Type = Types[ slot_num / 2 ]
>Odd Slot Number:
> Type = Pointer[ slot_num / 2 ]
>
>Yes?
Exactly.
>Essentially this eliminates pointer types from the type list altogether.
>Cool idea.
>
>Where's the patch? :)
>
>Seriously
2004 Aug 21
2
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:55, Robert Mykland wrote:
> At 05:09 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
> >
> >If you're interested in the plans, they are described in some detail here:
> >http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/TypeSystemChanges.txt
> >
> >Note that there is no concrete timeline for this to happen, it basically
> >depends on when someone is ambitious