similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM code emittion and C++ compiler compatibily

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > The other thing are the return types. I don't know (it is probably even > not documented) how VC++ returns smart pointer (boost::smart_ptr), > or any other type (other basics types, such as int, float, ... are > probably returned into EAX as with GCC). Once again, we may > need specific return values per arhitecture. It is

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> The other thing are the return types. I don't know (it is probably even >> not documented) how VC++ returns smart pointer (boost::smart_ptr), >> or any other type (other basics types, such as int, float, ... are >> probably returned into EAX as with GCC). Once again, we may >> need specific return values

On Mon, 6 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > The problem is this is not possible, because what I would compile to JIT > are actual classes. The integration of C++ and JIT code is very > important; for example we would create our own vtbls with JIT-ed code > addresses as the function call target. Ok. Realize that this ties you to a specific compiler version though. >

Hello, Ziga. > First the calling conversion. The so called __thiscall conversion on > VC++ passes arguments on stack, while this pointer is passed > into ECX register. For GCC, as far as I am aware, the this pointer is > pushed as if it were a special (first) argument. The fix would > be preaty simple but we want the bytecode to be OS independant, so we > cannot change the

Hello, everyone! My name is Žiga Osolin and I am one of administrators of baadengine project (www.baadengine.org). It is an open source, BSD-licenced, game engine. We are very interested in llvm to provide us runtime code generation (basically, wrappers to easily call scripts from C++ and vica-versa, via vtbl (we replace vtbl for scripted types)) and also to allow our VM to run on llvm. Our

I made the windows port, the first example compiled and executed correctly. I am sending a patch so you can test it if i didn't break linux compatibility. Otherwise, I will look into deja-gnu testing, perhaps can compile it on windows. I will also add other beckend in the future (Sparc, PowerPC). I hope windows using Visual C++ will be soon officially supported :) About the problem I had

Chris Lattner pravi: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >>> Sure. Anton can give you ideas for this. >>> >> I think it should not be too difficult because you allow custom call >> conversions and this is quite easy to add, we only have to garantee that >> the backend will emit it. > > Right. > >>>> 2) the ret

Chris Lattner pravi: > On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided >> how to >> make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: >> 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the >> first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would >>

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: >> Sure. Anton can give you ideas for this. >> > I think it should not be too difficult because you allow custom call > conversions and this is quite easy to add, we only have to garantee that > the backend will emit it. Right. >>> 2) the ret instruction should be able to return structs (as Chris has >>>

I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided how to make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would abstract llvm compiler dependant C++ code emittion. 2) the ret instruction should be able to return structs (as Chris has already

Hi everyone! I am working on a .NET based project (actually written in C#). During the coding, we have noticed many inefficiencies of C# compiler to optimize code. Compiler performs only a few optimisations. A vital optimisation, inlining, is missed. The JIT-er has rules not to inline methods containing structs as parameters (this is really stupid!) and inlining methods longer than 20 bytes

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > I was going through documentation and source lately, and I decided how to > make llvm bytecode more compatible to C++: > 1) thiscall sould be introduced, which would take N arguments and the > first argument would always be the C++ "this" argument. This would > abstract llvm compiler dependant C++ code emittion. Sure.

> Otherwise, I will look into deja-gnu testing, perhaps can compile it on > windows. I will The deja-gnu testing framework will most likely have to be rewritten to run on Windows. Its very unix specific. -Tanya > also add other beckend in the future (Sparc, PowerPC). I hope windows using > Visual C++ will be soon officially supported :) > > About the problem I had with

I was wondering if (and when) is the full C++ compiling support (as it was with llvm3) to be expected (this mainly means the addition of EH to llvm)? Regards, Žiga

Hello (again)! I fixed most of the system and the following projects compile now: * Analysis * AsmParser * Bytecode * CBeckend * Codegen * ExecutionEngine * Support * System * TableGen * Target * Transforms * VMCore I would like to compile at least x86 target as well as Fibonacci example (to test if it really works). In order to do so, I may need some hints: 1) How to generate

Hello! I am currently trying to make EH (exception handling) possible to be integrated in C++. This means that C++ code can throw exceptions and llvm code can catch such exception and llvm can throw exceptions that C++ can catch (or pass through). There are quite some difficulties with approach: * I must write ABI specific backends for EH. Since we support Visual Studio and GCC, two

I switched my Common Lisp compiler to use MCJIT on the weekend and ran into a weird problem compiling one particular function. It crashes with an EXC_BAD_ACCESS error in MCJIT::finalizeObject when calling processFDE. The weird part is that the function does not appear to do anything special and I've whittled it down to the minimum size that still causes the crash. If I remove even one

Hi Christian, Thanks for sharing this. Yaron Keren has been investigating some problems in the EH frame registration code recently, and I think this may be related. It at least sounds similar to the type of variations in behavior based on code size that Yaron was seeing. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of

Hi, I had similar problems with EH in ELF in RTDyldMemoryManager::registerEHFrames() calling __register_frame(). I'm not sure these problems are related to this problem since your crash happens in RuntimeDyldMachO::registerEHFrames() in its own processFDE (there are two functions named processFDE(), one in RuntimeDyldMachO.cpp and one in RTDyldMemoryManager.cpp) *before*

On Sat, 18 Nov 2006, [ISO-8859-2] Žiga Osolin wrote: > I am currently trying to make EH (exception handling) possible to be > integrated in C++. This means that C++ code can throw exceptions and > llvm code can catch such exception and llvm can throw exceptions that > C++ can catch (or pass through). There are quite some difficulties with > approach: Cool! This is the major