Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Bytecode file bugs / doc bugs"
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 18
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecodes & docs
MOre feedback inline ...
Robert Mykland wrote:
> Reid,
>
> Thanks for the detailed feedback.
Sure .. devil's in the details :)
> A value of zero now means zero literal for everything except labels,
> right?
Hmm. Not quite sure what you mean here. Zero values are used in quite a few
places for various purposes. For example, the zlist will write a zero byte to
terminate
2004 Jan 21
3
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecode Format
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
together for me and I can finish it up. In the meantime, people are welcome
to what I have
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
2006 Nov 07
2
[LLVMdev] A question about getElementPtr
I'm busy writing the code that translates the LLVM construct
GetElementPtr into my virtual circuit representation. Since
GetElementPtr handles structures, I can end up at the end with a pointer
to some literal type, and know the literal type, but not know the
pointer type of what I have, at least not explicitly from the bytecode.
This has made me think I have to massage my context table
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
2007 Mar 28
2
[LLVMdev] Third party integration
I have only just begun looking through the docs for LLVM. I have read
through some of the PP presentations to get an idea of the modularity of
LLVM.
May someone be so kind to point me to some documentation on how to
communicate with the LLVM modules (specifically the optimizer) from some
third party piece of software (my compiler)?
I am hoping there is a file format, or some serialization, that
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
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 20
4
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
Dear Chris and Reid:
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 to unsigned char several
things would be possible. Single char constants that are defined would be
almost always stored
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 Aug 20
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
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 to unsigned char
> several things would be
2004 Jul 07
0
[LLVMdev] Bytecode Format Documentation For Review
Folks,
I have completed a final draft of the bytecode documentation. You can
find it in llvm/docs/BytecodeFormat.html in CVS. Or, if you'd prefer to
view online, you can find it here:
http://llvm.x10sys.com/llvm/docs/BytecodeFormat.html
I'm soliciting your feedback on this document. Please let me know if
anything is awkward or just plain wrong.
Thanks,
Reid.
-------------- next part
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