similar to: [LLVMdev] Online docs missing?

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: > 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. Zion, the machine that hosts that, has been running out of disk space.

On Mon, 6 Mar 2006, Vladimir Prus wrote: > 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. Fixed, thanks! -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

Hello, is there any documentation for LLVM codebase other than produced by doxygen? The reason I'm asking is that doxygen docs are (1) not very complete at the moment, as lot of classes don't even have a description (2) is generally not the best way to get high-level view of a big codebase. As an example, consider this code: %tmp.1 = setgt int %i, 0 br bool %tmp.1, label

Hi, right now many classes have comments that don't show up in Doxygen. Say, MachineConstantPool.h has a big file-level comment, but it does not show up when looking at the generated docs for MachineConstantPool. Are patches moving file comments to appear before relevant classes welcome? - Volodya

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',

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

The docs for MachineFunction::create method have a couple of nits: // The next three methods are used to construct, destruct, and retrieve the // MachineFunction object for the given method. // // construct() -- Allocates and initializes for a given method and target // get() -- Returns a handle to the object. // This should not be called before

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

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:

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

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

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

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004, Vladimir Prus wrote: > is there any documentation for LLVM codebase other than produced by doxygen? Yes, most definitely: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/Documentation.html > The reason I'm asking is that doxygen docs are > (1) not very complete at the moment, as lot of classes don't even have a > description > (2) is generally not the best way to get