similar to: [LLVMdev] jump table ?

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > Is it possible to take the address > of a basic block ? Nope. > I'd like to put a whole bunch of these > addresses into an array, and then select > one to branch to. Eg. like a switch statement. > (i'm thinking also of GCC's computed goto's) llvm-gcc supports gcc's computed goto's. You can see what code it

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 11:53:56 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 28 Jun 2006, Simon Burton wrote: > > Is it possible to take the address > > of a basic block ? > > Nope. > > > I'd like to put a whole bunch of these > > addresses into an array, and then select > > one to branch to. Eg. like a switch statement. >

On Thu, 29 Jun 2006, Simon Burton wrote: >> LLVM does support switch table emission, but only in certain modes. I >> think it's only supported in non-pic codegen mode. Patches to improve >> this would be welcome :) > > I am not sure what "non-pic codegen mode" is. > PIC is relocatable code ? ie. object files ? > So if i'm using the JIT then it will

I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the function. However the emission of jump tables at the end of a function is done inside the AsmPrinter base class and there seems to be no way of disabling this. This also seems to

On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: > I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a > series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function > so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the > function. However the emission of jump tables at the end of a function > is done inside the AsmPrinter base class and

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >> so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the >> function. However the emission of jump tables at

On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >>> so there is no longer a need to emit jump

On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>>> series jumps. The jump table entries are

On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've recently

Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! -Chris On Mar 9, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner

Is it possible to get llvm to generate native machine code without using gcc and friends ? Do I use lli ? I'd like to directly create executable code that i can stick in memory somewhere and jump into (call). (I'm looking to use llvm in a BSD licensed project). Simon. -- Simon Burton, B.Sc. Licensed PO Box 8066 ANU Canberra 2601 Australia Ph. 61 02 6249 6940 http://arrowtheory.com

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

Thanks for reviewing this. Committed in r98255 and r98256. The bug against the ARM backend is 6581: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6581 On 10/03/10 21:45, Chris Lattner wrote: > Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! > > -Chris > > On Mar

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 >

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

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,

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 22:38:24 -0500 (CDT) Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > > >> Is this really the number of bytes of machine code ? > > Yes. > > To be specific, this is the number of bytes of machine code JIT'd. Thus, > this only includes the stuff reachable from main, for example. To see > specifically what functions it is compiling and

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 Fri, 5 May 2006 16:43:13 +1000 Simon Burton <simon at arrowtheory.com> wrote: > > It slows in the construction phase, so one of these calls: > M = ParseAssemblyString(AsmString, M); > verifyModule( *M ) > M->getNamedFunction(name); > EE->getPointerToFunction > > It feels like there is a linear name lookup going on somewhere. it's