similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm.org dns

FYI, llvm.org is down. The machine was having some planned maintenance this weekend, and it may have gone awry. Unfortunately, most of the UIUC people are apparently out of town this weekend, so it may not be up until wednesday. -Chris -- http://nondot.org/sabre/ http://llvm.org/

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007, Daniel Berlin wrote: > This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. > In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc > just yesterday. Yep, clang reports: t.c:4:12: error: read-only variable is not assignable arr[0] = 1; ~~~~~~ ^ 1 diagnostic generated. so this is specific to llvm-gcc somehow. -Chris > On 8/9/07, Chris

The macro $src, $dest used in Instruction::AsmString must be "declared" in Instruction::OperandList, right? $$ has special meaning? On 5/6/05, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 May 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > > llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86InstrInfo.td: > > class X86Inst<bits<8> opcod, Format f, ImmType i, dag ops, string > >

I commented this line and it is compiling now: extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); I hope that will not cause a different kind of problem. What it is zalloc used for? Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > It seems that this happened before but I do not know the details: > >

Yes, sorry for not mentioning it. I added that header also Although I suppose that if I am not using Sparc there will be no problem (it's an Itanium 2 machine) Thanks --- Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > > > I commented this line and it is compiling now: > > > > extern void *malloc ARGS((unsigned)); > >

This certainly doesn't occur in gcc mainline. In fact, I improved the error message, and added a error test to gcc just yesterday. On 8/9/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. > > Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. >

On Wed, 4 Jul 2007, Ben Chambers wrote: > Ah, I was missing that include/llvm/LinkAllPasses.h change. Thanks! > Now I have it working, except for the fact that it doesn't seem to > generate fresh names for things. Or if it does, they're the empty > string (I suspect it is the latter, since when I create the new > instruction the empty string is passed in for the name of

On Mon, 7 Feb 2005, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: >>> Also I have in Makefile.rules (but not include in patch) some modification >>> for simplify used common Makefile.rules in LLVM projects and non-LLVM >>> project (guarding some LLVM specific parts by ifdef >>> LLVM_OBJ_ROOT/LLVM_SRC_ROOT vars). >> >> I'm not sure about this, perhaps Reid

the proposed architecture (chris) doesn't seem to attack the phase ordering problem. through having independent instruction selection, instruction scheduling, and register allocation phases faciliate a modular design, but i believe the phase-coupled code generator generator high quality code on many architectures. espeically in the embedded system like a media/dsp processors with very limited

On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Ben Chambers wrote: > How hard would it be to compile this pass and add it to the passes > that opt can run? Is this something I should be able to do relatively > quickly? What was the name of the file(s) that implemented the pass? It should be easy, modulo it bitrotting. It is already built as an opt pass. The filename was LowerConstantExpr.cpp IIRC. -Chris

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > i'd like to know what progress you guys have made (not on cvs?). Everything is in CVS. Noone is currently working on automating the pattern matching generator process yet. Before doing that, there are a few changes we want to make to the SelectionDAG interface. In particular, right now, the selection process basically works like this: #1.

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. Looks like a bug, please file a bugzilla entry. -Chris > int func() > { > const int *arr; > arr[0] = 1; > } > > $ llvm-gcc main.c -c; echo $? > 0 > > $ gcc main.c -c > main.c: In function 'func': > main.c:4: error:

void MetaSplit::handleProgramUses(Value *V){ if(!isa<BasicBlock>(V)) programValues.insert(V); if(User *U = dyn_cast<User>(V)){ User::op_iterator OB = U->op_begin(), OE = U->op_end(); for(; OB != OE; ++OB){ if(CallInst *CI = dyn_cast<CallInst>(*OB)){ Function *F = CI->getCalledFunction(); if(F == ii || F == fi || F == vi || F == di || F == ci

Thanks Chris! That was causing me some confusion. Now it's producing a more meaningful output: poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u, 4u); poolinit((&l2_GlobalPool1), 4u, 4u); l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i = poolalloc((&l2_GlobalPool), 4u); l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2 = l1_makeList((&l2_GlobalPool1), 0); *(&((struct l_struct_2E_list *)l5_tmp_2E_0_2E_i)->field0) = l6_tmp_2E_7_2E_i2;

On Mon, 25 Apr 2005, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=75700 Oh, tWig. :) Yes, tree pattern matching is exactly the direction we are heading. We are slowly making the code generators more and more automatically generated as time goes on. The SelectionDAG infrastructure is mean to support exactly this (perform Tree or DAG pattern matching on the optimized DAG

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Tobias Nurmiranta wrote: > A small question: How do I ensure memory alignment? I want all malloced > memory, globals and functions to be 4-byte aligned. Does llvm have any > ".align" keyword? In the medium term, we plan to add alignment requirements to the alloca/malloc instructions and to globals (vars/functions) but we do not have this yet. Currently

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, xavier wrote: > Thanks for the information > I am trying to use one of your examples for recursive data structures: > > ========================= > PATypeHolder StructTy = OpaqueType::get(); > std::vector<const Type*> Elts; > Elts.push_back(PointerType::get(StructTy)); > Elts.push_back(PointerType::get(Type::SByteTy)); > StructType *NewSTy =

Hi, Given these C instructions: ============================== struct stru { struct stru *Next; }; struct list *NewStru = malloc ( sizeof ( struct stru ) ); struct list *tmp.3; ... tmp.3 = NewStru->Next; ============================== LLVM generates something like this: %tmp.0 = malloc %struct.stru ; <%struct.stru*> %tmp.3 = getelementptr %struct.stru* %tmp.0, int 0, uint 1 ;

How hard would it be to compile this pass and add it to the passes that opt can run? Is this something I should be able to do relatively quickly? What was the name of the file(s) that implemented the pass? Thanks, Ben On 7/3/07, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Tue, 3 Jul 2007, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > >> We used to have a 'lowerconstantexpr' pass in

On Sat, 2 Apr 2005, Ricardo wrote: > After applying the PA to it, the output is something like this: ... > My question is: why is this malloc necessary? > ltmp_2_5 = malloc(4u); > Shouldn't be the result a program with this malloc replaced by poolalloc? > Should I include a special flag to achieve this? Ah, sorry, my memory was wrong. The default is to perform the