similar to: [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 -----

Hi, Yiping! I am not sure of the answer to your question, but I am forwarding it to the LLVMdev list where I am sure someone will be able to answer you. Please send development questions directly to LLVMdev and you will get a response quicker, as it is read by many LLVM developers. ----- Forwarded message from Yiping Fan <fanyp at cs.ucla.edu> ----- Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 17:20:24 -0800

On Wed, Oct 20, 2004 at 11:59:45AM -0700, Yiping Fan wrote: > 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. Since we're talking about "execution" and "scheduling", you

Yiping, Could you describe in a little more detail what your goals are? I agree with Reid and Misha that modifying the instruction definition is usually not advisable but to suggest alternatives, we would need to know more. Also, for some projects it could make sense to change the instruction set. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ On Oct 20, 2004, at 2:41 PM,

Vikram, I also agree with you. I understand that target-independent representation is very valuable and important for software compilation. However, when we are doing high-level synthesis (also called behavioral/architectural synthesis), the targeting architecture is also changing. That is, we need to do architecture exploration and the IR transfromation simultaneously. For example,

Yiping, If you are doing architectural synthesis, I do agree that you likely need to capture some operations in the instruction set, especially if you want to perform analyses and optimizations on those operations. Some specific comments: On Oct 20, 2004, at 6:04 PM, Yiping Fan wrote: > Vikram, >     I also agree with you. I understand that target-independent > representation is

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 08:52:28 -0700 Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > On Fri, 2004-08-20 at 08:07, Jeff Cohen wrote: > > OK. I've built the front end without any heartaches, but I did > > encountered the following glitches: > > > > The documentation of --with-llvmgccdir is a bit ambiguous. I had to > > try several paths

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

Hi all LLVMor, I just tried to compile a simple code and analyze the number of the basic blocks. But after compile, what I got, the bytecode is seems to be optimized bytecode. So the information of basic blocks is not what I expected. I want ot use the code as example to see how some of code optimization methods work. However, after compiling file using llvm test.c -o test, bytecode file

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

On Sat, Aug 21, 2004 at 04:15:49PM -0700, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I don't know if it's under cvs. It's the "getting started" page > (http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html) in section "Getting > Started Quickly (A Summary)". But careful reading of the remainder of > the page does give the correct path. http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/* is a copy of

Dear All, I downloaded the latest CVS of llvm I want to try to use LLVM only for JIT only use (generating code in memory for x86 and, when available PowerPC [32bits]) How do I ./configure to avoid being asked about llvmgcc, which, in my very partial understanding, is only used to parse C code... If I understand correctly what Chris Lattner emailed me, LLVM uses only GCC frontend for C & C++

Perhaps I am missing some link. Need a bit clarification. For the C language, I want to access the LLVM code immediately generated by llvmgcc(cfrontend/bin/gcc) before it undergoes any further transformation or optimization. 1) Are there any libraries that enable me to parse C code and create the Module instance. 2) If answer to 1) is no, then is there some other way to create Module

Hi, I am working with llvm 1.3 on a sparcv9 machine. I have successfully built llvm and llvm-gcc frontend. I can run many tools including llvmgcc, llvm-dis, and llc. After using /opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc to assemble .s file into a program binary, I can run the binary correctly as well. I am interested in the JIT compiler (lli). When I directly run the LLVM bytecode using interpretation ("lli

Hi, I was trying to know if LLVM 1.5 works better with VC++ 2003 and to what extent. This link: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/releases/1.5/ Referred to in : http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/ReleaseNotes.html Is broken Where can I find more information? In particular: Can the LLVM be compiled using VC++ 2003? Does it generate bytecode and executable code? Thanks

Suppose, I have a Pass1 implemented as a subclass of Pass, with source code in the directory of llvm source base( transform/analyze ) I can run that pass through opt on the bytecode emitted by gcc frontend through opt tool. However, I want that Pass1 to be the part of the actual GCC compiler. I want to know how I can position Pass1 among other passes /optimizations/ code generations. e.g if

does anyone knows how to get the Olden BM bytecode files? We're low on disk space and I don't want to build the whole test branch (even if i can, which I doubt, it failed last time i tried).

Reid Spencer wrote: >Yes, that's right! > >In fact, shortly the process of doing that will get easier with the >llvmc (compiler driver) tool that I'm working on. You write your >compiler to generate either bytecode or LLVM assembly and a > > Does that mean the front end must decide between emiting bytecode for interpretting/JITing and LLVM assembly for native

> Yes, this is no problem. You can do something like > this: > > $ llvmgcc X.c -c -o X.bc > $ llc X.bc -o X.s > $ gcc Y.c -o Y.o -c > $ gcc X.s Y.o -o program > $ ./program Ok, fine, and what about the interpreter? It takes 100% llvm, doesn't it? Or is there some kind of import facility (perhaps as an specially interpreted call or as an extension to llvm which makes

> > Now I have other problem: I have a Module and I need generate a iostream > > (memory) with native x86 code (maybe elf/coff) to be executed later > (into > > the guest process space, without fork!!). I studied llc and lli, but > they > > don't help me much. Any idea? Are there any guy working in some like > that? > > There's two approaches that