similar to: [LLVMdev] Assembly Change: implementation keyword no longer recognized

Update: I've reverted the assembly parser change so that "implementation" will be accepted. This is to provide a grace period for you to update your .ll files. Please remove the use of implementation in your .ll files as this keyword will disappear in < 1 week. Note that the AsmWriter will not generate this keyword any more. Reid. On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 11:21 -0700, Reid

For everyone understand which code must be emitted to implement TLS, I will paste the code generated by gcc for a simple function: __thread int a = 1; int f(){ return a; } gcc teste.c -o teste.s -S -O2 (arm-linux-gnueabi): .global a .section .tdata,"awT",%progbits <== special section for tls symbols .align 2 .type a, %object

Hello Tim, Thank you for getting back to me. The language grammar as defined by the LLVM Language Reference Manual [1] does not include the details of the LLVM IR parser reference implementation. The following extract from "lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp" illustrates that unnamed globals are allowed [2]. > /// ParseUnnamedGlobal: > /// OptionalVisibility (ALIAS | IFUNC) ...

On 25 May 2016 at 16:10, Robin Eklind via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > declare void @foo() unnamed_addr > global i32 42 Doesn't a global have to be named? The syntax in the IR reference doesn't make it optional: @<GlobalVarName> = [Linkage] [Visibility] [DLLStorageClass] [ThreadLocal] ... Cheers. Tim.

Hello everyone, While developing a parser for LLVM IR, I seem to have stumbled upon a potential ambiguity in the LLVM IR assembly language grammar. Most likely there is something which I may have overlooked, so wanted to reach out to a more experienced crowed for some feedback. How would the following set of tokens be interpreted [1]? declare void @foo() unnamed_addr global i32 42 As far as

Hi Duncan, On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Ralf, > >> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >> BasicBlocks? > > not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! I am looking into that now. I decided to temporarily go for the following syntax for BasicBlock metadata (subject to discussion): entry:

On May 7, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Duncan, > > On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Hi Ralf, >> >>> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or >>> BasicBlocks? >> >> not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! > > I am looking into that

If we were to implement the #unroll pragma, we would want to add metadata to loop headers. But, it's not a big deal since we can simply add this metadata to block terminators. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Gohman Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 00:58 To: Ralf Karrenberg Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List

hi, I have one question about up reference, why use \nested_level_count in type description. and have to handle it in HandleUpRefs() (AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y) , why not just insert type name and return in calcTypeName() (AsmWriter.cpp) ; As you mention in "How to build recursively type" , %mylist = type { %mylist*, int } is accepted . Is it neccessary to use

Hi Lauro, On Wed, 2007-04-11 at 15:15 -0300, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > For everyone understand which code must be emitted to implement TLS, I > will paste the code generated by gcc for a simple function: ... snip ... This proposal sounds really good to me. I only have a couple comments. We have a "section" keyword already developed in LLVM assembly. Perhaps instead of

Hello; I was planning to add a new instruction to the LLVM IR (and later to MIPS backend) for TLS(Thread level speculation) support. For this I tried to follow the steps described in http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM dot html#instruction. But I could not find any llvm/lib/AsmParser/Lexer.l and llvm/lib/AsmParser/llvmAsmParser.y file in both the svn repository and the source code downloaded

Hi, Does anyone tell which file whose emit the llvm assembly file (.ll), I want to modify for specific use. Thank you all Kinds -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180612/5f3c72d5/attachment.html>

-llvmcommits On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> wrote: > Btw, I know this is for ELF printing, but can the same infrastructure > you're using to print the hi/lo be used to print relocation in Asm > output? Or is this a completely separate subject? Hi Renato, If I am understanding you correctly, then the answer is no, because .s output

On Oct 17, 2012, at 3:29 PM, David Young <davidy at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi, > I’m trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. > > But…. > Hexagon assembly does not follow the “Mnemonic Rx Rx …” format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure,

Hi LLVMdev, Sorry about the bad title, but I hope you will get my idea. I think that in many LLVM programs that create/modify the LLVM IR (like say a language frontend/profiler etc), and in other cases too, some of the code is just "mechanical", for example creating function types takes like 4-5 lines of code, but nothing interesting goes on there. I think we can get rid of such code by

Hi, I'm trying to enable the hexagon LLVM assembly parser. It seem like there is a lot of work that has been done to make this parsing straightforward. But.. Hexagon assembly does not follow the "Mnemonic Rx Rx ." format that is expected by the assembly parsing infrastructure, represented by: StringRef Mnemonic = ((ARMOperand*)Operands[0])->getToken(); This

Indeed, Nadav. I also want to store information about loops as block-metadata of the loop header, but as you say this is easily doable by using block terminators. However, for the divergence analysis, we cannot use the terminators, because the properties of a block are determined by multiple criterions. If you do not want to introduce ugly dummy-calls to store that data (and write even more

hi, I want to know what is exact meaning in the following code. target endian-- %struct..TorRec-- %struct.TorRec-- implementation-- ;<sbyte>[#uses=1/0]-- how to explain them in details? Does anyone give me a guide? thanks yueqiang -------------------------------------------------------------- target endian = little target pointersize = 32 %struct..TorRec = type { int, void ()* }

The usual workaround is to do `rm –rf .git/llvm-upstream-svn` and try again. You could also patch llvm/utils/git-svn/git-llvm to add the `--verbose` option to the `git apply` command, which would provide better diagnostic output. HTH, --paulr From: Petr Hosek [mailto:phosek at chromium.org] Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 10:52 PM To: Robinson, Paul Cc: James Y Knight; llvm-dev; vedant_kumar at

Ryan Taylor wrote: > Nick, > > Unfortunately this doesn't answer my question I don't think. It > seems that -instnamer, as you mention, names the instructions but still > does not name the local variables. What other local variables are you referring to? When AsmWriter prints "%y = add i32 %x, 1", the name of that add instruction is "y" and