similar to: [LLVMdev] if's to switch transformation?

On Fri, 23 Dec 2005, Eric van Riet Paap wrote: > I few days ago I had some code (for the PyPy project) that llc -march=c > converted to a switch statement and gcc compiled that nicely to a jumptable > in the .s file. Now I try to reproduce when directly going from a .ll to a .s > file. But I now see a long list of compare and jumps instead of the > jumptable. Is there a

Hi, For the PyPy project ( http://codespeak.net/pypy ) I am working on the x64-64 support. I would like to use llc -march=ia64 to generate the assembly but that is not supported at the moment. As a workaround I let llc generate C code that gets compiled, but this unfortunately is not a good way to show the power of llvm. A understood this ia64 support will be worked on soon. First week of july

You are right, the machine I am on is a AMD Opteron. I could probably generate working code for x86, but I am testing the implications of using 64 bits integers. The four weeks is not really important, it's just that it would be nice to have really fast code to showcase. Something related to this: to test the effect of 64 bits integers I replace all reference of int by long in my .ll file.

Hi there, The IA64 architecture, which had its 'official' name changed to the "Itanium Processor Architecture", *is* supported by llc. I am pretty sure you are talking about the x86-64 architecture, which has also had its share of unfortunate name changes and is also known as "AMD64", "EM64T" and all sorts of things in between. x86-64 is *not* currently

Hello all, I am involved in a compiler project for Transport Triggered Architectures (think VLIW and you are pretty close), and we are considering using LLVM. Browsing the list archives, I noticed an announcement of Python bindings for LLVM 1.5. Does anyone know the current status of the bindings? -- Pertti

On Jan 11, 2007, at 7:14 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: >> I was looking for an indirect branch instruction in llvm, which would >> not take a BasicBlock as argument, but a value. Reid told me on >> IRC that >> there is no such instruction in llvm. >> >> Is this deliberate? Or did you never face the need of this

On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Eric van Riet Paap wrote: > I think using different settings is generally (and this this case too) a bad > idea because it makes things more complicated. All developers know how to > build LLVM. Most (new/casual) users expect a certain behaviour and they will > judge LLVM on subjective grounds. If linking/performance suffers they will > continue looking for

On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 01:10 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric van Riet Paap wrote: > > I must say I also was in need of this document but never knew it > > existed. It seems to be linked from the faq page only. I only read > > that the first day I came to LLVM. Maybe linking it from the > > GetElementPtr instruction in LangRef.html would make sense.

Hi, The person that developed the bindings is Jarno Seppänen , he sent me the code a few weeks ago. They were build with Boost.Python. The latest version was for LLVM 1.6 and the bindings seem to be unmaintained at the moment. From what I could tell they are very clean and probably easy to maintain/update to LLVM 1.7. From what I could tell from the email archive they were not far from

Hello, I would like to ask the llvm developers to have a look at http:// llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=918 . This bug has been reported 4 month ago but is none the less a somewhat serious one. Below I have pasted the test case and output of the issue running on my ppc machine. thank you Eric pb:~ eric$ cat testme.ll;llvm-as -f testme.ll;llc -march=c -f testme.bc;gcc -c testme.cbe.c

On Nov 13, 2006, at 9:01 AM, Reid Spencer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 01:10 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006, Eric van Riet Paap wrote: >>> I must say I also was in need of this document but never knew it >>> existed. It seems to be linked from the faq page only. I only read >>> that the first day I came to LLVM. Maybe linking it from the

Hi, I'm able to build the llvm tools on the MinGW platform: burg, fpcmp, tblgen, llvm-as, llvm-dis, opt, gccas, llc, llvm-link, lli, gccld, llvm-stub, analyze and extract. I wonder if these tools are sufficient to start build the cfrontend? Henrik. _________________________________________________________________ Undg� pop-ups med MSN Toolbar - http://toolbar.msn.dk hent den gratis!

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

I am investigating some inlining issue, so I did llvm-gcc aaa.c bbb.c ... nnn.c -o output opt -inline -inline-threshold=xxx < output.bc | llc -march=c > output_inline.c 1) I noticed that even if I set xxx to 0 or even a very small negative number, many functions are eliminated. I am wondering if these functions are inlined by the frontend, or identified as deadcode. For instance,

<cc'ing llvmdev> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Eric van Riet Paap wrote: > I'm working on using the LLVM JIT in PyPy and I hop you can give me a few > hint. ok > I have some things working at and try to write C++ code for what I need > from Python. The unittest I am working on at the moment is looks like > this > > --- Python code... > llglobalmul4 =

Ryan Brown wrote: > I don't think llvm-gcc4 uses gccas or gccld, but it can emit bytecode > if you give it the --emit-llvm option: > llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c -o foo.bc foo.c That's a bit asymmetric with the previous gcc3 version, isn't it? That would mean that the "An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain" section needs to be updated for the gcc4 frontend. OTOH, I could

I know that Al Stone has compiled llvm-gcc4 successfully and I can report the same. The problem I consistently run into is that llvm-gcc ends up producing native format output; it does not produce bytecode, nor does it invoke gccas or gccld. I'm using the latest svn, and my configure args are: --prefix=/work/scottm/llvm-cfrontend/obj/../i686-pc-linux-gnu \

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

Hi devels, there are two issues concerning invoking optimizations: 1. this document: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html is very nice, it would be good though to add in a section An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain examples on optimization step. 2. If i am not wrong there is no tool, which integrates all steps: llvmgcc->opt->llc into something like llcc (and

This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c strncasecmp.c -Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt -lm -o llvm_parser [197.parser]$