similar to: [LLVMdev] Extending LLVM

I was going to wait to bring this up but since the topic has been addressed ... Would people other than myself find it useful to have a standardized extension framework for LLVM? I'm thinking of something that would allow new LLVM instructions, fundamental types, structured types, etc. This would require significant work to allow the various pieces of LLVM (assembler, disassembler, runtime,

Yes, pretty much. There are a few things that will go in the std namespace because its the way it is and a more natural fit. The other two namespaces already in use (cl and DOT) will be placed under the llvm namespace. The goal is to get everything that is currently at top level and put it in llvm. This means that in your programs, you wouldn't use: cl::XYZ anymore but: llvm::cl::XYZ. Or,

Oops .. pardon my last incomplete posting, pushed Ctrl-Enter by accident! As I was saying .. Rahul's idea is interesting and would make some aspects of LLVM programming easier, but I wouldn't use it in my source language for the following reasons: 1. Of necessity the "snippet parser" would need to be based on the same language/grammar as AsmParser. Allowing parsing and

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Bill Wendling wrote: > It is possible to extend LLVM to add, say, matrix operations at a higher > level and then "lower" them into some version of LLVM "proper" after > performing any transformations on them, right? Also, it's possible to > have any custom-made types (like "matrix") as well? It is certainly possible to do things

Rahul, Were you talking about tracing in the sense of "profiling" (which Anand did), or tracing of values as they are computed for debugging generated code (which I did)? For tracing of values for debugging, the answer is yes: we insert code in each BB and print out the values computed in that BB that are live at the end of the BB (so we don't print out temporaries computed and

I have been working on something along similar lines: translating Alpha machine code into LLVM. It is probably much more simple to handle Alpha instructions than x86 instructions. Translating individual instructions is easy, more analysis is needed to eliminate things like register allocated variables, function call setup/prolog/epilogue etc. Machine specific operations can be encoded using

Hello, I have observed that the LLVM build takes pretty long time to link executables (i.e. tools). Is that a normal behavior? Thanks, Rahul

On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Would people other than myself find it useful to have a standardized > extension framework for LLVM? I'm thinking of something that would allow > new LLVM instructions, fundamental types, structured types, etc. This > would require significant work to allow the various pieces of LLVM > (assembler, disassembler, runtime, JIT,

Hi LLVMdev, The stuff I am working on requires linking 9-10 LLVM libraries, along with a few libs of my own. The linker is taking a long time to do that, about 6 mins (on a P4 with 512 MB mem). I tried the latest (2.14) release of binutils, but that didn't help. Is anyone aware of any solution to this? Thanks, Rahul

Hi all, I had a quick question. I think it's possible to do this, but just wanted to make sure. It is possible to extend LLVM to add, say, matrix operations at a higher level and then "lower" them into some version of LLVM "proper" after performing any transformations on them, right? Also, it's possible to have any custom-made types (like "matrix") as well?

On Fri, 2004-03-26 at 14:57, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > Would people other than myself find it useful to have a standardized > > extension framework for LLVM? I'm thinking of something that would allow > > new LLVM instructions, fundamental types, structured types, etc. This > > would require significant work to allow

Coming back to the issues that I had integrating LLVM with MSSP, will the code in include/Support also be put in the llvm namespace? That will solve many problems and help prevent others. Rahul ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:13:03 -0600 (CST) >From: Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> >Subject: [LLVMdev] LLVM namespac'ification >To: LLVMdev List

Hi, I want to run the Mem2Reg pass on a function without using the the LLVM opt utility. I wrote some code, which I am not sure is correct: TS_ASSERT(!verifyFunction(*function)); // find the dominance frontier of the CFG DominanceFrontier DF; DF.runOnFunction(*function); // try to promote stack allocated variables PromoteMemToReg(function->getRegAllocas(), DF, *tgt_data);

Hi, I checked out the LLVM code today, and it seems Value is no longer a subclass of Annotable. Is IR annotation still supported? Right now, I just need to annotate global variables. Thanks Rahul

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <head> <title></title> </head> <body> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:speex-dev@xiph.org">speex-dev@xiph.org</a> wrote: <blockquote type="cite" cite="mid1050398492.11049.TMDA@motherfish-II.xiph.org"> <pre

Hi LLVMdev, Sorry about the bad title, but I hope you will get my idea. I think that in many LLVM programs that create/modify the LLVM IR (like say a language frontend/profiler etc), and in other cases too, some of the code is just "mechanical", for example creating function types takes like 4-5 lines of code, but nothing interesting goes on there. I think we can get rid of such code by

Hi Rahul, I believe that ARM support is working in the MCJIT engine (as of llvm 3.1). If it wasn't working in the legacy JIT engine 10 months ago then it probably still isn't. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Rahul Garg Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:13 PM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re:

Rahul Agarwal Analyst Equities Quantitative Research UBS_ISC, Hyderabad On Net: 19 533 6363 hi let me explain you the problem we have a database which is in this format Stocks 30-Jan-08 28-Feb-08 31-Mar-08 30-Apr-08 a 1.00 3.00 7.00 3.00 b 2.00 4.00 4.00 7.00 c 3.00 8.00 655.00 3.00 d 4.00 23.00 4.00 5.00 e 5.00 78.00 6.00 5.00 and we have a query

On Sun, 9 Nov 2003, Rahul Joshi wrote: > Coming back to the issues that I had integrating LLVM with > MSSP, will the code in include/Support also be put in the > llvm namespace? That will solve many problems and help prevent > others. Absolutely. -Chris > ---- Original message ---- > >Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 10:13:03 -0600 (CST) > >From: Chris Lattner <sabre at

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004, Rahul Joshi wrote: > I checked out the LLVM code today, and it seems Value is > no longer a subclass of Annotable. Is IR annotation still > supported? Right now, I just need to annotate global variables. Nope, we removed that from the IR from CVS (what will be 1.2 soon). The Annotation class had several problems and wasn't needed. In any case where you used