Displaying 20 results from an estimated 40000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecodes & docs"
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 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
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
2004 Aug 19
0
[LLVMdev] Re: LLVMdev Digest, Vol 2, Issue 30
Comments re your comments...
At 05:26 PM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
>>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 the list. In general a zero byte is only used to
>terminate some
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 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
The default prefix is /usr/local but I would recommend that when you
configure LLVm you do so with:
configure --prefix=/me/llvm/install/dir ...
so that installation occurs in a place you have write access. If you
feel strongly about restoring the install-bytecode target, feel free to
file a bug.
Reid.
On Thu, 2004-11-11 at 09:12, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> Wow... it is nearly twice as fast. But
2004 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
Wow... it is nearly twice as fast. But it tried to install stuff in
/usr/local (and as I wasn't root...) and it didn't do that before. As I
don't care about profiling or tracing, I didn't bother to su and do it
again.
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:45:35 -0800
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
> The entire makefile system was rewritten a couple of weeks ago. This is
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 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 Nov 12
0
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
This kind of thing is one of the many reasons we broke llvm-test out to
a separate project. It has multiple purposes. Its a correctness test on
LLVM, its what we base our compiler benchmarks on, and its also where a
lot of the research gets done. You've been bitten by the latt(n)er. :)
At some point I'd like to see us make some distinctions so that there is
a correctness test suite whose
2004 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
The entire makefile system was rewritten a couple of weeks ago. This is
a good thing, your compiles now go twice as fast. Resistance is futile,
just adapt :)
The install target installed the bytecode libs into CFEINSTALL as before
and also installs the native libraries to your prefix/lib directory.
This is intentional.
Reid
On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 23:32, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> But there already
2004 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
But there already was an "install", and it did far more than install the
bytecode files. That changed too?
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 23:28:27 -0800
Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote:
> Yeah, its just "install" now.
>
> I'll fix the documentation.
>
> Reid.
>
> On Wed, 2004-11-10 at 23:19, Jeff Cohen wrote:
> > My rebuild from scratch
2004 Nov 12
4
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
No, I don't feel strongly about it... it's just annoying to have things
change on me that break habits :)
On the other hand, I do feel strongly about the tests in llvm-test that
are now failing on me because they explicitly include alloca.h, a file
that does not exist on FreeBSD. I can supply a patch to take out the
include, of course, but the problem then becomes that the tests will
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
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 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
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 17:39, Robert Mykland wrote:
> No, you're not getting the point. The bytecode is bloated by pointers to
> all types. Every time a type is defined pretty much a pointer is defined
> with it already, and since the pointer type is not implied by the
> definition of the literal, we waste two or more bytes whenever we define a
> type. I'm advocating
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