similar to: [LLVMdev] standalone llvm

On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Simon Burton wrote: > > Is it possible to get llvm to generate native machine code > without using gcc and friends ? Do I use lli ? llc. llc --help lists all the options. it compiles llvm bytecode files. > > I'd like to directly create executable code that i can > stick in memory somewhere and jump into (call). > > (I'm looking

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 22:48:16 -0500 Patrick Meredith <pmeredit at uiuc.edu> wrote: > > On Apr 12, 2006, at 10:23 PM, Simon Burton wrote: > > > > > Is it possible to get llvm to generate native machine code > > without using gcc and friends ? Do I use lli ? > > llc. llc --help lists all the options. it compiles llvm bytecode > files. It seems this

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 03:25:39 +0200 Oscar Fuentes <oscarfv at telefonica.net> wrote: ... > Simon, > > With a fresh CVS checkout, I've tried your test case on Windows/VC++ > and it works ok. Too bad that I have not access to a Linux machine > right now. I'll like to see what's wrong with your test case. > > What you get from running the test case under gdb

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 18:07:42 +0200 Oscar Fuentes <oscarfv at telefonica.net> wrote: > > Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > > > I'm trying to take assembly and create machine code I can execute. > > How close am I ? > > Your test case is not complete. Besides, which version of llvm are you > using? What are the commands for compiling

Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > I'm using llvm CVS, and manage to compile/link OK. Yes I include JIT.h. > The program segfaults when it gets to calling the function pointer. > >>From the Makefile: > > llvmjit: llvmjit.o > g++ llvmjit.o /home//users//simonb//lib/LLVMAsmParser.o /home//users//simonb//lib/LLVMInterpreter.o `llvm-config --ldflags`

On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > > Is it possible to get llvm to generate native machine code > without using gcc and friends ? Do I use lli ? LLVM only needs llvm-gcc to translate from C/C++ to LLVM IR. If you already have code in LLVM IR form (e.g. because you're generating it on the fly or you have your own front-end) you don't need llvm-gcc. > I'd like to

Dear LLVM guys, I am getting an error with my pass implementation, and I cannot figure it out. Basically, I've implemented part of a register allocation algorithm, but I am having problems to set the passes correctly. For instance, for this program below, the following error message is produced: .c ----------------------| .bc ---------------------------------

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:02:12 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > > I'd like to directly create executable code that i can > > stick in memory somewhere and jump into (call). > > Take a look at the llvm/examples directory. There are several small > programs that create LLVM IR on the fly and JIT compile it. I'm trying to take

On Fri, 23 Jun 2006, Fernando Magno Quintao Pereira wrote: > I am getting an error with my pass implementation, and I cannot figure > it out. Basically, I've implemented part of a register allocation > algorithm, but I am having problems to set the passes correctly. For > instance, for this program below, the following error message is > produced: It's hard to say

Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: >> There are several possibilities here: either add1 is assigned a NULL >> pointer, or LLVM was unable to use the JIT and generates bytecode >> instead of native code, or invalid native code was generated >> (unlikely). > > Well, it's not NULL: > > (gdb) print add1 > $1 = (int (*)(int)) 0x83e43b8 >

Dear LLVM guys, I've solved my problem with the passes, and compiled my first code using the new register allocator! Debugging was quite easy, using gdb. The problem was that I was forgetting to initialize the array that records the physical registers ever used (MachineFunction::UsedPhysRegs). This is a very minor thing, but I would suggest asserting that the vector has been initialized

On Fri, 5 May 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > This leads me to my next question: as I make more and more functions > with the EE, it slows down. I am re-using the Module, ExistingModuleProvider, > and ExecutionEngine, and pumping the parser like so: > M = ParseAssemblyString(AsmString, M); > ISTM that there should be a way of creating multiple modules/EEs but I ran > into trouble

Hi, I'm building a little JIT that creates functions to do array manipulations, eg. sum all the elements of a double* array. I'm writing this in python, generating llvm assembly intructions and piping that through a call to ParseAssemblyString, ExecutionEngine, etc. It's working OK on integer values, but i'm getting nasty floating point exceptions when i try this on double*

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 21 Jun 2006, Simon Burton wrote: >> This from the output: >> >> 24620 x86-emitter - Number of machine instructions emitted >> >> (i had to write a dummy main function to get this to work) >> >> Is this really the number of bytes of machine code ? > Yes. To be specific, this is the

Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> writes: > Hi, > > I've read over the "LLVM Language Reference Manual" > a few times, and writing some ll code, but i'm stuck at > a very basic point. How to decrement a counter variable ? > > int %count(int %n) { > EntryBlock: > %cond = seteq int %n, 0 > br bool %cond, label %Exit, label %Next >

Hi, In my experiments, I need to disable several linking optimizations. However, bzip2, vortex and eon failed if "-disable-opt" was passed to gccld. I tried the out-of-box llvm and the building process provided by llvm-test. The same problem was observed, when I specified EXTRA_LINKTIME_OPT_FLAGS = -disable-opt on Makefile.program and simplied typed "make" under

On Fri, 5 May 2006 01:19:08 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > On Fri, 5 May 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > > This leads me to my next question: as I make more and more functions > > with the EE, it slows down. I am re-using the Module, ExistingModuleProvider, > > and ExecutionEngine, and pumping the parser like so: > > M =

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 23:27:39 -0700 Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Simon, > > The x86 backend does generate scalar SSE2 instructions. For your > example, it should emit something like: Oh, how did you get this ? [...] > > There is nothing here that should cause an exception. Are you using a > release or cvs? CVS. >From what I remember,

On Sat, 15 Apr 2006 07:47:00 +0200 Oscar Fuentes <oscarfv at telefonica.net> wrote: > > BTW, Simon, is there a reason for writing LLVM assembler and not > generating LLVM code directly? You mean write C++ code that calls the LLVM library ? I have a mild C++ allergy that I don't wish to aggravate. > The later is simpler and relieves you > from some nasty burdens. Yes,

Segfault in EE->getPointerToFunction. I think it's blown the stack, gdb reports a never ending backtrace (below). I generate llvm assembly and parse/verify OK. Attached is the assembly. It is the smallest example generated that causes the segfault. If this EE uses a recursive function (??), it seems an inherent limitation in how big llvm functions can be. Simon. gdb backtrace: #0