similar to: [LLVMdev] Why LLVM libraries are static?

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:

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

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

Chris Lattner wrote: > > Right, but you'd need HTTP/FTP server. Not a problem for *me*, but lots > > of folks are behind firewalls and can't do that. > > Sure. I can't imagine that there is a wonderful solution other than this > though. In particular, how can you do distributed development without it? > The whole idea is to reduce the need for a completely

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 Two questions. 1. Why install process requires some nonstandard tool? Is it possible to get away without it. 2. autoconf/configure.ac has this: AC_PATH_PROG(PAX, [pax], [pax]) but Makefile.rules uses plain 'pax',

On Thursday 22 September 2005 19:12, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Sep 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > On 22/09/05, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Couldn't you state the explicit namespaces. So not using "using > >> namespace llvm" and instead prefix all calls with "llvm::"? > > > > The header files in

Okay, let me test with exactly your options and I'll let you know what I get. Reid. On Wed, 7 Jul 2004 19:53:15 +0400 Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs.msu.su> wrote: > 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

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

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:

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

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

Okay, I've replicated your results, but I don't think there's an error here, its just not nice output from the disassembler. The first %tmp.ll is of type long. The second one is of type short. I think that's valid for LLVM. That is, the SSA form depends on both the type and name of the virtual register. In any event, llvm-as seems to compile the llvm-dis output just fine. Make

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

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

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

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

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