similar to: [LLVMdev] I got problem in BranchInst+SetCondInst

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs > repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Here's an idea: how about we take the ModuleMaker, Valery's previous example, and this one and put them all in one "small examples" project? -Chris > Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > >

Valery, That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this "brilliant" :) example in the cvs repository? I'd be happy to put it in. Reid. Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 >

On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? Reid. Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > >>That's pretty cute actually. Do you want this

On Tue, 17 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > On second thought, the makefiles don't (easily) allow this do they? You can > only build one program per directory. Were you suggesting that you wanted me to > move the entire directories under a "small examples" directory? You're right. The simples way to do this would be to have: projects/ SmallExamples/

Hi LLVMers, the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible optimizations are really invoked. Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 on my Athlon XP 1500. Nice. P.S. guys, no fears, I don't plan to flood the cvs repository with my "brilliant" examples ;) --- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > the example attached I have used to prove that JIT and some visible > optimizations are really invoked. > > Proved OK. I got 30% speed-up in comparison to gcc 3.3.3 > on my Athlon XP 1500. Cool! Hey Valery, before we add this to the CVS repo, can you take a look at some of the changes I made to your HowToUseJIT example and

Before I file a bug, I thought I'd check to make sure something hasn't changed. Stacker used to work in 1.2, now it fails on six tests. All six tests pertain to use of the SetLT, SetGT, SetLE, and SetGE SetCondInst. In my test programs they all fail, regardless of the values. The *only* thing I've done to Stacker is to change the base type involved in the comparison from int to long.

On Sun, 9 May 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > Before I file a bug, I thought I'd check to make sure something hasn't > changed. Stacker used to work in 1.2, now it fails on six tests. All six > tests pertain to use of the SetLT, SetGT, SetLE, and SetGE SetCondInst. > In my test programs they all fail, regardless of the values. > > The *only* thing I've done to Stacker is

Sorry for the delay Lee, I was out of town yesterday. In general it's better to send questions to the LLVMdev list... > hi. all i want to do now is make a new SetCondInst that i can replace > some old ones with, and it is turning out *impossible*. the first > parameter is the opcode, which is of class BinaryOps, which turns out to > be an enum i can't understand in

Hi all, I was trying to implement an obfuscation tool for C-code on the basis of LLVM. I got a prototype of the simple obfuscation transformation which converting control flow graph to something like a state machine. I am not sure I will have time to work on extending further this tool with new transformations like opaque predicates and decided to put here source code I have by now with hope

what's the semantics for setCC if one of the operands is NULL pointer? %ptr=alloc int seteq int*, %pt, NULL what's the result for the second instruction? How about setne, setlt, setgt, setle, and setge? Thanks! Jianzhong

Hello again Valery, Valery A.Khamenya wrote: > All benefits, what one could obtain from "LLVM supporting multiple CPU > at single host", one might obtaine from "LLVM supporting multiple CPU > at multiple hosts". Isn't that logical? I see more precisely what you mean, but I don't think it is that straightforward to generalise the benefits multiple CPU on

Is there a convenient way to access the arguments of an arbitrary instruction? The programmer's manual describes how to iterate over the values a given instruction uses, but that doesn't seem to be exactly the same thing. For instance, given a pointer to a FreeInst, how can I get the pointer that is freed? Or from a SetCondInst pointer, the two values that are compared in the

> Interesting email address there :) > On Thu, 2004-01-08 at 01:18, =?koi8-r?Q?=22?=Valery > A.Khamenya=?koi8-r?Q?=22=20?= wrote: unfortunally some email parsers and email clients deny to work correctly with international conventions :( follow this URL for more details: http://www.python.org/doc/current/lib/module-email.Header.html > On the same machine, LLVM definitely needs to

> I see more precisely what you mean, but I don't think it is that > straightforward to generalise the benefits multiple CPU on single host > programming to multiple CPU at multiple hosts. I don't think that both > cases involve the same techniques. you are right, just think of shared memory. > For example, in "single host" configuration you get a very low

Hi, are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) language implementations? How good is LLVM for this? E.g., is it natural to expect that the LLVM-based implementation of the language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? Best regards -- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Building PowerPC.td register information header with tblgen Included from PowerPC.td:22: Parsing PowerPCInstrInfo.td:53: Variable not defined: 'GPRC'! make[3]: *** [PowerPCGenRegisterInfo.h.inc] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/pool/tmp/ssrc/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC' maybe I just have to "make clean" and/or ./configure BTW, would it be nice to put Depend, Release and

Hi Valery On 13 September 2010 19:07, Valery Khamenya <khamenya at gmail.com> wrote: > are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) > language implementations? I've added a new LLVM backend to the ghc Haskell compiler. > How good is LLVM for this? Works very well. I'm operating from the low levels of the ghc compiler though where I don't

Hello LLVM fathers, 1. "languages, semantic trees" what do you think ideally, do languages implementations based on LLVM need internal semantic tree or they should rather try to use LLVM directly in/after syntax parsing? For languages like C++ the expected answer is "of course we need an internal semantic tree between parsing and LLVM!" But I am still

Hi all, web-browser access to cvs is of course nice, but is it possible to provide anonymous read-only access to llvm cvs? (it would be nice to have an ability just download last sources) P.S. BTW, this and previous my post were actually motivated by desire to find some simple example on JIT usage :) --- Valery A.Khamenya