similar to: [LLVMdev] How to write a new backend?

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:04 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? > > The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't > provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but

On Wednesday 04 May 2005 18:34, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 4 May 2005, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > %tmp.aux = cast bool %tmp.24 to int > > %tmp.x = xor int %tmp.aux, 1 ; negates tmp.24 > > %tmp.xx = cast int %tmp.x to bool > > %tmp.y = or bool %tmp.xx, %tmp.24 ; will be always true > > br bool %tmp.y,

Anyone willing to do some testing? I've finally gotten LLVM 1.4 to build Debian packages from source (it weren't pretty), at least for i386. To get the debs, add the following to your sources.list: deb http://toolchain.org/~ahs3 / deb-src http://toolchain.org/~ahs3 / then 'apt-get update' as usual. To install the packages: apt-get install llvm llvm-doc This will

Hi Misha, On 6/1/05, Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:33:39AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > > What's the plan for support on Linux 64-bit machines? Is that actively > > being worked on right now or is there a roadmap for doing this? > > Do you mean compiling on 64-bit Linux or generating code for 64-bits? > I meant

Misha Brukman wrote: > LLVM Machine code is in SSA. This explains quite a lot. I though it's possible to just reduce convert phis into copy instructions in predecessors -- all of which will have the same destination register. > gets you two definitions of r. So we have machine PHI nodes merge the > two possible values into one for result of r. These phis get removed > after

Could anybody quickly explain why PHI nodes instructions are necessary in machine code? And why the code in LiveVariables.cpp which looks at those PHI nodes (line 249 and below) is necessary. The reason I'm asking is that I try to support 64-bit comparison and I do it by generating code like: // if high1 cond high2: goto operand0 // if high1 reverse_cond high2:

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but if someone were to contribute it to us, we would gratefully host it. Note that if you

The docs for MachineFunction::create method have a couple of nits: // The next three methods are used to construct, destruct, and retrieve the // MachineFunction object for the given method. // // construct() -- Allocates and initializes for a given method and target // get() -- Returns a handle to the object. // This should not be called before

The attached patch fixes an error message emitted by tblgen when no subclasses of 'Target' are defined. In the current version the message is ERROR: Multiple subclasses of Target defined! which is a bit confusing. - Volodya -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CodeGenWrappers.diff Type: text/x-diff Size: 1057 bytes Desc: not available

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > > > LLVM Machine code is in SSA. > > This explains quite a lot. I though it's possible to just reduce convert phis > into copy instructions in predecessors -- all of which will have the same > destination register. There are algorithms for eliminating PHI nodes, but they aren't quite so simple.

I'm not a Debian user, so I can't help by testing, but I do have some comments... On Tue, Jan 18, 2005 at 03:59:07PM -0700, Al Stone wrote: [snip] > If you want to install the packages one at a time, do the > following, in this order: > > apt-get install llvm-libs > apt-get install llvm-cfe > apt-get install llvm > apt-get install llvm-doc [snip I

Hello, I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: llvm[0]: Installing include files /bin/sh: line 1: pax: command not found Two questions. 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard tool? Is it possible to get away without it. 2. autoconf/configure.ac has this: AC_PATH_PROG(PAX, [pax], [pax]) but Makefile.rules uses plain 'pax',

Hi! When I go to http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/doxygen/annotated.html and click on link for, say, "llvm::Module", I've told that the target page does not exist. Same happens for llvm::Value, and in fact everything under "llvm" namespace. Any idea what's wrong? - Volodya

The above-mentioned test contains this: long B53 = - (1LL << 53); strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Thouhts? - Volodya

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then:

Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is

I am looking for a list of the various optimizations that llvm performs when I use the JIT execution engine. Eg. I am assuming: strench reduction, dead code elimination ? Simon.

On my target, the multiplication can involve all general purpose registers, but there's are still some restrictions: the first and the second operand as well as the result must be in different registers, and neither register can be gr7. How can I enforce this restriction on the register allocator? - Volodya

I have done a possible cleanup patch for the MachineCodeEmitter, ELFWriter, and MachOWriter classes. It removes the two startGVStub(), and finishGVStub() JIT specific methods. You may remember the following comments :- /// JIT SPECIFIC FUNCTIONS - DO NOT IMPLEMENT THESE HERE! To get rid of these easily turned out to be a semicomplex modification because of the JITInfo classes dependance on

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> If you're interested, please try it out. > I get this with LLVM CVS: > Adding: > #include "llvm/Target/TargetData.h" > Fixed this. Right, thanks. > Chris, any change you'll make gcc4 frontend source available from some CVS? > Then, I can put together a script to build it every night, to make sure > things