similar to: [LLVMdev] Register Allocation of Globals

On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Nikhil Patil wrote: > Is it possible to bind a physical register to a particular global value? For > instance, can I say that the global variable %omnipresent should be > allocated not to memory, but instead to register %EAX. GCC has an extension to do this (see its user manual) and we support this. Note that this does not guarantee that the register will always

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. >

Hi, I am planning to generate code for a peculiar architecture with _no_ branch instructions (!), but with predicated loads and stores to memory. This means the architecture is not Turing complete, is going to waste a lot of computation, and any input program that can hope to get compiled for this architecture must have loops that can be fully unrolled, and all its functions must get fully

Hi, This is really more a general compiler question, not so specific to LLVM. Given a set of pre-defined "primitive" functions, is there a way to un-inline function calls out of a function? (This is different from "extracting" functions because you are not allowed to create a new function, but only to use existing functions in the pool. These "primitive" functions

Hi, Op 25-sep-06, om 20:07 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > What are you trying to accomplish? Why not use location records from > debug info? You mean the debugging intrinsics? Just discovered them :-), and I guess that's exactly what I need. Haven't tried them extensively yet, so I'm wondering whether the remark in your mail of 09/04/2006 to Nikhil Patil

I found a book on this (http://www.amazon.com/Automatic-Algorithm- Recognition-Replacement-Optimization/dp/0262133687) on Amazon. Last I heard this was considered an intractable problem in the general case... but ad hoc solutions for specific functions (like memcpy) are possible. That book looks fairly promising. On Aug 7, 2007, at 10:32 AM, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > Hi, > > This is

On 08/10/2007, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I am planning to generate code for a peculiar architecture with > > _no_ branch instructions (!), but with predicated loads and stores > > to memory. This means the architecture is not Turing complete, is > > going

Hi Nickhil, The Legalizer expects lower'd call is the node that produce the same number of values as the non-lowered node. That's what the assertion is checking. Take a look at the LowerCall routine for any other targets. You will see that in the non-void function case, it returns a MERGE_VALUES, i.e. all the results merged along with the chain. Cheers, Evan On Nov 15, 2006, at

Hi, I think I found a bug. I don't know if it's in upstream gcc or llvm-gcc4. 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: assignment of read-only location The difference disappears when arr[0] is replaced by *arr. (I tried the above with gcc 4.1.2, 3.4.6, 4.0.3. (I don't

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:

Hi, I am trying to write a LowerCALL() function for my (custom) target ISA. All I need to do is map a CALL instruction directly onto an SDNode that takes an equal number of arguments (very much alike intrinsics, except that these are custom to my target.) I do not need to implement any call sequences, stack frames etc. I get the following assertion failure: llc: LegalizeDAG.cpp:834:

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

On Oct 7, 2007, at 12:51 AM, Nikhil A. Patil wrote: > Hi, > > I am planning to generate code for a peculiar architecture with > _no_ branch instructions (!), but with predicated loads and stores > to memory. This means the architecture is not Turing complete, is > going to waste a lot of computation, and any input program that can > hope to get compiled for this

On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Bram Adams wrote: > Op 25-sep-06, om 20:07 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: >> What are you trying to accomplish? Why not use location records from >> debug info? > > You mean the debugging intrinsics? Just discovered them :-), and I guess > that's exactly what I need. Haven't tried them extensively yet, so I'm >

Hi, The LLVM manual mentions that it is not possible to return multiple values in LLVM. I really need to get around this. I am trying to compile for a (weird, proof-of-concept) language with infinite registers and no memory, where I need to pass several (easily hundreds) of registers to a function, and also return several (hundreds) of registers back. Would using packed values be the right

Hi, I was interested in telling the compiler not to inline a given function, and discovered that the __attribute__((noinline)) implements this using a global variable @llvm.noinline. It did not work for me initially. I noticed that @ llvm.noinline was being internalized by -internalize, dead-code-eliminated by -constmerge, causing this information not to reach the -inline pass. I am not sure if

Hi, Op 25-sep-06, om 23:26 heeft Chris Lattner het volgende geschreven: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2006, Bram Adams wrote: >> Haven't tried them extensively yet, so I'm >> wondering whether the remark in your mail of 09/04/2006 to Nikhil >> Patil about >> "-g currently disables many optimizations" still holds. > > Yes, that is true. What are you trying

Hi everybody, I am trying to register my softphone(twinkle) on an asterisk server. Everything seems to be fine. Here is the output on show registrations in twinkle: Tue 18:57:51 nikhil: you have the following registrations <sip:2001 at 172.26.48.208 <sip%3A2001 at 172.26.48.208>>;expires=3013 208 is ip of the asterisk server. on the server on doing 'sip show peers' , it

I'm not sure if this is what you want. But the function coordinates() in sp package gives you the coordinates of SpatialObjects. Regards. Rodrigo. 2010/6/9 Nikhil Kaza <nikhil.list@gmail.com> > You need to execute gpclibPermit() to enable gpclib. > > library(maptools) should have issued a warning to that effect. > > > Nikhil Kaza > Asst. Professor, > City and

Hi, I would like to know how much effect these stoppoint calls have on the optimization of the bytecode? DOes insertion of debugging info cause opportunities for optimization (especially interprocedural dead code elimination and interprocedural constant propogation) to be reduced? The -g code is not very readable, so I am not able to confirm this by my own experiment. Thanks! Nikhil On Sat,