similar to: [LLVMdev] Bytecode to C

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > llvm-as file.bc | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis > file.ll llvm-as < file.bc | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis > file.ll Note the extra "<". -Chris > On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 09:12 +0800, lizhuo wrote: >> meone tell me how to convert LLVM bytecode into minimal SSA form ? >> or just depend on GCC frontend ? > -Chris --

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

On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:04:36PM -0600, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Reid Spencer wrote: > >llvm-as file.bc | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis > file.ll > > llvm-as < file.bc | opt -mem2reg | llvm-dis > file.ll > > Note the extra "<". Strictly speaking, llvm-as converts .ll to .bc so that would be: llvm-as < input.ll | opt -mem2reg |

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

On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:53:47PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); OK, then what's the assertion? You can also see the resulting module by using -disable-verify: $ opt -yourpass -disable-verify < file.bc | llvm-dis You may see what the problem is by looking at the LLVM assembly. -- Misha Brukman ::

Hi, I am wondering whether the bytecode generated by my llvm-gcc is correct? When I run $ llvm-gcc hello.c -o hello What I get is hello.exe.bc, and hello.exe (I can actually llvm-dis the bytecode file which is hello.exe.bc). However, I do not get a shell script(named hello) as stated in the documentation... Best Regards, Kiat On 5/25/05, Aaron Gray <angray at beeb.net> wrote: >

2009/1/1 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > On Jan 1, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Talin wrote: > > I'm thinking that getting unit tests for the classes in ADT should > > be an early goal. > > Can I suggest the AP[S]Int class? If you look in llvm/test/Integer > you'll see a whole bunch of tests that really want to be unit tests > but that aren't. :(

On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 04:07:19PM -0800, xavier wrote: > 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 LLVM 1.5 hasn't been released yet. :) This is the current work-in-progress that will be

Constant *strcon==ConstantArray::get("Value : %d\n"); Sorry Typo. On Tue, 21 Dec 2004, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 03:45:33PM -0700, Sriraman Tallam wrote: > > I have this call instruction to printf inserted which is causing > > an assertion failure. Any pointers to where I am wrong : > > > > Function

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

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

Hi Misha, Thanks for your answer I was doing this: ======================== BasicBlock *BBlock = new BasicBlock("entry", MyFunc); ... Value *Zero = ConstantSInt::get(Type::IntTy, 0); Value *UZero = ConstantUInt::get(Type::UIntTy, 0); MallocInst* mi = new MallocInst( STyStru ); mi->setName("tmp.0"); BBlock->getInstList().push_back( mi );

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

On Thu, Aug 19, 2004 at 10:35:02AM +1200, Peter Ashford wrote: > Does that mean the front end must decide between emiting bytecode for > interpretting/JITing and LLVM assembly for native compilation? You > can't emit the one kind of output for either end target (interpretted > bytecode or native compilation)? Not at all, there's only one version of LLVM IR, but it can

This is exactly what i m trying : opt -load /home/tsharma/ankur/llvm/Debug/lib/LLVMHello.so -hello <helloprog.bc> /dev/null Tanu Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Tanu Sharma wrote: > I wrote a pass which randomizes basic blocks and insert new block.But > when i run another pass over it which simply lists all basic blocks I > don't get

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 Jan 5, 2009, at 11:37 AM, Misha Brukman wrote: > 2009/1/1 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> > On Jan 1, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Talin wrote: > > I'm thinking that getting unit tests for the classes in ADT should > > be an early goal. > > Can I suggest the AP[S]Int class? If you look in llvm/test/Integer > you'll see a whole bunch of tests that really

Ok, my spec95 installation is completely different, so I'll try and figure out what options are needed for each benchmark separately by looking at the code that creates the makefiles. Meanwhile, I had another question - is there a way in llvm to look at the SSA form of a program and then modify the SSA, and then recompile this modified SSA ? If so, is there any documentation regarding

Currently, llvm bytecode files must begin with llvm\d where \d = {0,1,2}. Have you considered allowing a "hash bang path" to precede the llvm magic number? This would allow llvm modules to be executable on UNIX systems (and under cygwin). Would the community find this useful? I like the idea of platform-independent binaries being able to masquerade as native executibles. I'm

Hi, Given these C instructions: ============================== struct stru { struct stru *Next; }; struct list *NewStru = malloc ( sizeof ( struct stru ) ); struct list *tmp.3; ... tmp.3 = NewStru->Next; ============================== LLVM generates something like this: %tmp.0 = malloc %struct.stru ; <%struct.stru*> %tmp.3 = getelementptr %struct.stru* %tmp.0, int 0, uint 1 ;