similar to: [LLVMdev] MSIL backend

Hello, Everyone. We've just commited new backend for LLVM: MSIL. The author of backend is Roman Samoilov from Codedgers Inc. (roman at codedgers.com). Backend itself is very similar to C backend (and actually was based on it). Note, it's pure LLVM-to-MSIL translator, so no additional checks etc. are performed. Backend is usable in general, but still lacks some important features: 1.

Hello, Jeff. > and dereference it. But MSIL is at a higher level, where one simply > uses the callvirt instruction to do a virtual call and no vtable is > supplied or even present. You're right. Consider we will have some FE for MSIL, which will just generate LLVM's "call" instruction with some predefined CC, which will mean "this is virtual call". Backend

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I'm confused. A MSIL front end I can understand, but a back end? How > will it be used? The GCC-based front ends that come with LLVM generate > bytecodes that have dependencies on the GCC runtime, which is not going > to be present in a .NET environment. Who said the input has to come through the GCC front-ends? Perhaps this is for

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Everyone. > > We've just commited new backend for LLVM: MSIL. The author of backend is > Roman Samoilov from Codedgers Inc. (roman at codedgers.com). Backend itself > is very similar to C backend (and actually was based on it). Note, it's > pure LLVM-to-MSIL translator, so no additional checks etc. are > performed. > I'm

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> I'm confused. A MSIL front end I can understand, but a back end? How >> will it be used? The GCC-based front ends that come with LLVM generate >> bytecodes that have dependencies on the GCC runtime, which is not going >> to be present in a .NET environment. > > Who said the input has to come

Hello, > As for the state of the MSIL backend of LLVM, I don't think it's for > production use yet. Assemblies have lots of information in them and > maintaining them during the MSIL -> LLVM -> MSIL translations should be > the hard part. This should be pretty hard. MSIL is definitely much more high level than LLVM, that's why significant portion of information will

Dear Rudiger, Rüdiger Klaehn wrote: > Hello all. > > is it possible to use LLVM to optimize existing .NET assemblies? > It's in theory possible. LLVM+VMKit already does it for Java classes. > Basically doing the following: > > - read in MSIL and convert into LLVM internal representation > - perform global optimizations on LLVM internal representation > - write

Hello all. is it possible to use LLVM to optimize existing .NET assemblies? Basically doing the following: - read in MSIL and convert into LLVM internal representation - perform global optimizations on LLVM internal representation - write out optimized MSIL using the existing LLVM backend I presume that the capability to convert MSIL into LLVM internal representation exists somewhere in VMKit.

I tried building LLVM 2.1 with no real target CPU backends enabled, just the C backend, by hacking the configure script slightly: --- /home/foad/llvm/llvm-2.1/configure 2007-09-17 22:37:52.000000000 +0100 +++ configure 2007-12-13 10:29:41.000000000 +0000 @@ -4762,7 +4762,7 @@ done ;; esac -TARGETS_TO_BUILD="CBackend MSIL $TARGETS_TO_BUILD"

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info > wrote: > Hello, > > > As for the state of the MSIL backend of LLVM, I don't think it's for > > production use yet. Assemblies have lots of information in them and > > maintaining them during the MSIL -> LLVM -> MSIL translations should be > > the hard part. > This

Both backends are important but I find it more important the MSIL backend, for now. It's a shame that nobody is picking up the MSIL backend; it would be useful another backend that is machine-independent and that has support for several tools. -----Mensagem original----- De: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu em nome de Bruno Cardoso Lopes Enviada: qua 05-11-2008 19:47 Para: LLVM Developers

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The problem is worse than I thought. > > MSIL, and .NET in general, defines a specific object model. This object > model is explicitly part of MSIL semantics. LLVM is at a lower level; > it does not have an object model. To do a virtual call, LLVM > instructions must be generated to load a function pointer from a vtable Unlike Java,

Hello everyone, I'm a little new to LLVM. I know that the backends are still in experimental stage. MSIL and MIPS would be very useful for a project that I'm working on. Do you have any plans to have it completed in the next few months? I could generate the MSIL assembly but when compiled it, which compiles sucessfully, it generates invalid opcode errors.

Hi Eduardo, > I'm a little new to LLVM. > I know that the backends are still in experimental stage. MSIL and MIPS > would be very useful for a project that I'm working on. Do you have any > plans to have it completed in the next few months? I could generate the > MSIL assembly but when compiled it, which compiles sucessfully, it > generates invalid opcode errors. As

> Ok, I'll wait for a more detailed description > You can report directly at http://www.llvm.org/bugs/ This seems to be MSIL related, not MIPS. I don't think anyone will be interested in fixing problems of this backend -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi, The code that I was using was this: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=nbody&lang=gcc&id=1 I followed the footsteps for compiling it to BC than I took the BC code and compiled it with ilasm2 (Mono). After that I tried to run the .exe with mono and it gave me a invalid opcode. I wish I could give more information about the bug but my ext3fs partition crashed

Hi, Artur > // CallSites have equal signatures > bool MSILWriter::cmpCallSite(CallSite A, CallSite B) { >   return (getCallSiteFType(A)==getCallSiteFType(B) && >     A.getAttributes()==B.getAttributes()); > } As it is impossible to honour argument attributes in MSIL I don't see why you should compare attributes. You seems to have the same MSIL call signature for calls

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:13 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> Ok, I'll wait for a more detailed description >> You can report directly at http://www.llvm.org/bugs/ > This seems to be MSIL related, not MIPS. I don't think anyone will be > interested in fixing problems of this backend oops! :) -- Bruno Cardoso Lopes

Hey there, Searching via the web is not producing answers.... So I thought I would ask the gods of llvm. :-) I'd like to experiment with the llc in conjunction with msil. but I am running into this error: llc-mp-2.9 test.ll -march=msil /opt/local/libexec/llvm-2.9/bin/llc: error: invalid target 'msil'. the version string is: llc-mp-2.9 --version Low Level Virtual Machine

Hi Artur, Artur Pietrek wrote: > Hello, > > I work in Kalray (Montbonnot, France) and I'm PhD student at Universite > Joseph Fourier in Grenoble. > We want to use LLVM framework for MSIL code generation, which is part of > my thesis. > Currently I'm still reading LLVM's documentation and I've started > completing the MSIL backend for running on Mono.