similar to: [LLVMdev] Install fails due to missing 'pax' tool

Vladimir, I believe I've corrected this situation with version 1.299 of Makefile.rules. It now only uses find and install to do the installation of the header files. pax isn't used any more. Hopefully this helps you. Reid. On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 04:18, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hello, > I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: > >

On Wed, 2005-02-16 at 04:18, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Hello, > I've just tries make && make install on a fresh CVS tree, and get: > > llvm[0]: Installing include files > /bin/sh: line 1: pax: command not found > This is a known issue. We plan to make the makefiles not depend on pax. > Two questions. > > 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard

Hi, If I setup an IP PAX gateway to handle VoIP calls to a traditional phone line, I am wondering how each VoIP call to the PSTN connection get charged by a local Telecom. Thanks Sam

The above-mentioned test contains this: long B53 = - (1LL << 53); strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is underfined". Thouhts? - Volodya

On Sat, 13 May 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> If you're interested, please try it out. > I get this with LLVM CVS: > Adding: > #include "llvm/Target/TargetData.h" > Fixed this. Right, thanks. > Chris, any change you'll make gcc4 frontend source available from some CVS? > Then, I can put together a script to build it every night, to make sure > things

Hello, I'm playing with alias analysis, using the following program: %i = external global int ; <int*> [#uses=2] implementation ; Functions: int %_Z3bari(int %p) { entry: %tmp.0 = load int* %i ; <int> [#uses=1] %tmp.1 = setgt int %tmp.0, 10 ; <bool> [#uses=1] br bool %tmp.1, label %then, label %UnifiedReturnBlock then:

Hi! When I go to http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/doxygen/annotated.html and click on link for, say, "llvm::Module", I've told that the target page does not exist. Same happens for llvm::Value, and in fact everything under "llvm" namespace. Any idea what's wrong? - Volodya

Hi, I have two questions about the above method of the SelectionDAGISel class. 1. The overrides in PPCDAGToDAGISel and in I64DAGToDAGISel are identical (except for PPCISD::FIRST_NUMBER vs. IA64ISD::FIRST_NUMBER). Maybe, this means that it would be better if SelectionDAGISel had default implementation? That would remove this code duplication. If desired, SelectionDAGISel can have both

Vladimir Prus wrote: > Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The above-mentioned test contains this: > > > > long B53 = - (1LL << 53); > > > > strictly speaking, this is not correct code. The C standard says about > > shift: "if the value of the first operator is ... or greater than ... the > > width of the promoted left operand, the behaviour is

Hi Reid, > Instructions are members of a linked list. Consequently if you insert > some Instruction, that instruction gets changed. So, its not const. > > Simple enough? Yes, thank you. I started thinking if "mutable" is right here, but that's long philosophical issue ;-) - Volodya

I've just had some fun, because I wanted to override FunctionPass::addAnalysisUsage, but forgot "const" after the method name -- so instead of overriding I've just created a new unrelated method. After spending some time on this, I've decided to add -Woverloaded-virtual option to compiler to catch such cases. However, it also gives some warnings on LLVM code:

Reid Spencer wrote: > Volodya, > > I think you may need to update your CFE and rebuild. I compiled the test > using my local build and I didn't get the results you see below. I'm > also very surprised to see this output. The first %tmp.11 should have > been %tmp.1 .. not sure how it got corrupted. In any event, the > attachment is obviously generated by code that runs

I've another problem. There's one register, gr6, which is used to return high part of return value for functions returning 64-bit values. For such functions, the register should not be saved, naturally. But when function does not return 64-bit value, then the register must be saved. How can I express this in .td file? - Volodya

Hello, after some time I'm trying to build my code with the current CVS of LLVM, and have a problem. The mentioned file, around line 184, contains: if (FixedSlot == FixedSpillSlots+NumFixedSpillSlots) { // Nope, just spill it anywhere convenient. FrameIdx = FFI->CreateStackObject(RegInfo->getSpillSize(Reg)/8,

On my target, the multiplication can involve all general purpose registers, but there's are still some restrictions: the first and the second operand as well as the result must be in different registers, and neither register can be gr7. How can I enforce this restriction on the register allocator? - Volodya

Hi, say I've a LLVM module with a call instruction. The called function is "pure", that is it has no side-effects at all. How can I communicate this to LLVM, so that the function call can be removed if the return value is never used? Thanks, Volodya

I've finally managed to bring my backend to a minimally working form. I can compile three small examples with arithmetic operations, branches and phi operations. However, there surely is a lot of omissions and bugs. How do I test a backend. For obvious reasons, I'd prefer a number of really small tests, to make debugging easier. I see some number of such small tests in

Hi, everytime one has to add instruction at the beginning of a basic block, one has to skip past PHI nodes that are already there. How about adding a new method to BasicBlock, to get that first non-PHI instruction? So, adding an instruction will be as simple as: new SomeInstruction(............., BB->getFirstNonPHI()) Patch attached. Comments? - Volodya -------------- next part

Hello, in the implementation of some analysis, I need to change the program and then invoke Mem2Reg pass. That pass, in turn, requires other analysis, so I must use PassManager. Here's the code I ended up with: bool runOnFunction(llvm::Function& m) { visit(m); ExistingModuleProvider mp(m.getParent());

On Monday 25 April 2005 14:43, Vladimir Prus wrote: > The 'i' variable is never modified in the program, however, all analyses > except for -globalsmodref-aa report that the > > %tmp.3 = call int %_Z3bari( int %p ) ; <int> [#uses=1] > > instruction can modify 'i'. I'm somewhat surprised, because it looks like > -globalsmodref-aa is the simplest