Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] The Incredible Shrinking Bytecode File"
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
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
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 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
2
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
On Thu, 11 Nov 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> 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
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 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
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 Nov 11
2
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
My rebuild from scratch has hit this snag. The instructions still call
for running "gmake -C runtime install-bytecode", but this target no longer exists.
2004 Nov 11
0
[LLVMdev] install-bytecode no longer works
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 has hit this snag. The instructions still call
> for running "gmake -C runtime install-bytecode", but this target no longer exists.
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
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
2005 Mar 23
2
[LLVMdev] bytecode -> native code
I am trying to obtain native code from the bytecode by using commands:
% llc hello.bc -o hello.s
% gcc hello.s -o hello.native
This is working for a simple program( a single source file) but when I try to run it on grep utility (grep.bc) , it gives me the following error:
$ llc grep.bc -o grep.s
$ gcc grep.s -o grep.native
/tmp/ccY3oNAA.o(.text+0x2f2f): In function `main':
:
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
2005 Jan 27
3
the incredible lightness of crossprod
The following is at least as much out of intellectual curiosity
as for practical reasons.
On reviewing some code written by novices to R, I came
across:
crossprod(x, y)[1,1]
I thought, "That isn't a very S way of saying that, I wonder
what the penalty is for using 'crossprod'." To my surprise the
penalty was substantially negative. Handily the client had S-PLUS
as
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 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 Oct 28
1
[LLVMdev] Bytecode Library Names
Some issues about bytecode libraries, their names, and where they get installed
need to be discussed.
Currently the bytecode libraries are installed to two different places:
$(libdir)
$(bytecode_libdir)
libdir is $(prefix)/lib
bytecode_libdir is $(LLVMGCCDIR)/bytecode-libs
The things that go into $(libdir) are built from the "runtime" directory but
aren't bytecode libraries,
2006 Dec 02
0
[LLVMdev] invalid bytecode signature
Hi Ryan,
On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 18:06 -0600, Ryan M. Lefever wrote:
> I am trying to disassemble some bytecode using llvm-dis:
> llvm-dis -f -o llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc.ll llvmtest/sliceme2.cbc
>
> However, I am getting the following error.
>
> llvm-dis: Invalid bytecode signature: 464C457F (Vers=0, Pos=4)
The problem is most likely that sliceme2.cbc is *not* bytecode. Open the
2006 Dec 02
1
[LLVMdev] invalid bytecode signature
Thank you for the help. There seem to be several things in my makefiles
that are messed up as a result of switching from the gcc3.4 front end to
the gcc4 frontend. Is there any documentation listing the things that
have changed?
Thanks,
Ryan
Ryan M. Lefever [http://www.ews.uiuc.edu/~lefever]
On Fri, 1 Dec 2006, Reid Spencer wrote:
> Hi Ryan,
>
> On Fri, 2006-12-01 at 18:06