similar to: [LLVMdev] Address of label

Hello, I search information in order to access address (i.e. value) of label directly in llvm assembler file. This can be useful to realize jump table from address, etc. I generate the file branch.ll from a C file. In this file, we saw that branches are realized by affecting virtually an id to each label and use a switch in order to find the right target. I want to know if there is

On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >>> so there is no longer a need to emit jump

On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: > On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > >> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> >>> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I've recently

On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >>> >>>> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >>>> series jumps. The jump table entries are

Thanks for reviewing this. Committed in r98255 and r98256. The bug against the ARM backend is 6581: http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=6581 On 10/03/10 21:45, Chris Lattner wrote: > Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! > > -Chris > > On Mar

On Apr 7, 2008, at 3:02 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> I don't think the duplication is going to be top much of a problem. >> If >> it is, I'll bug you about refactoring. :) >> >> > > I don't mean to show how lazy I can be, but I also need to know the > size > of the exception table

Typo "responisbility", otherwise looks great to me, please apply. For ARM, please just file a bugzilla suggesting that the ARM backend adopt this. Thanks Richard! -Chris On Mar 9, 2010, at 6:06 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 02/03/10 00:11, Jim Grosbach wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:09 PM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> >>> On 01/03/10 21:14, Chris Lattner

Hi, Two questions. 1) How are you computing size of the method being jitted? 2) Why not simply add the functionality of allocating emission buffer of specific size to MachineCodeEmitter instead? Thanks, Evan On Mar 30, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > vmkit requires to know the size of a jitted method before emitting > the method. This allows to

On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> 1) How are you computing size of the method being >> jitted? > > I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a > SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as > writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > > I don't think the duplication is going to be top much of a problem. If > it is, I'll bug you about refactoring. :) > > I don't mean to show how lazy I can be, but I also need to know the size of the exception table emitted in memory (JITDwarfEmitter.cpp). Reviewing it a little, I can not see how things won't be duplicated.

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > 1) How are you computing size of the method being > jitted? I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these function by incrementing a counter. At the end of the pass, the code size of the

On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> Let's see. ARM has it already. PPC has getNumBytesForInstruction so >> you only need to add one to compute function size. Also you only need >> to implement it for targets that support JIT right now, which leaves >> Alpha and X86. I'm

On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: >> >> >> That's a hack. :-) > > It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually > writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful > utility ;-) Except it's pretty slow at it. :-)

Evan Cheng wrote: > > Let's see. ARM has it already. PPC has getNumBytesForInstruction so > you only need to add one to compute function size. Also you only need > to implement it for targets that support JIT right now, which leaves > Alpha and X86. I'm guessing Alpha is using fixed encoding so it should > be pretty easy. Or you can just punt it and let the target

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > That's a hack. :-) It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful utility ;-) > Some targets already have ways to compute the exact > size of a function. See ARM::GetFunctionSize()

On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:52 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > On 23/02/10 14:58, Richard Osborne wrote: >> I've recently changed the XCore target to implement BR_JT as a jump to a >> series jumps. The jump table entries are expand inline in the function >> so there is no longer a need to emit jump tables at the end of the >> function. However the emission of jump tables at

Hello, Aaron. > /usr/src/llvm-gcc4/gcc/libgcc2.c: In function '__eprintf': > /usr/src/llvm-gcc4/gcc/libgcc2.c:1832: internal compiler error: > Segmentation fault > Please submit a full bug report, > with preprocessed source if appropriate. > See <URL:http://llvm.org/bugs> for instructions. You should: 1. Try to emit bytecode with --emit-llvm compiler switch. 1.1

Thanks for your help. Is there possible I can get the realily case value form the MI? For the case in https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34902. as follows. ############################# * GCC v7.1 generated assembly ############################# ** Options: -Os -marm -march=armv7-a foo: @ args = 0, pretend = 0, frame = 0 @ frame_needed = 0, uses_anonymous_args = 0 sub

Hi all, I'm a beginner in LLVM. I read a paper recently, and I'm trying to use LLVM jumptable in 3.5. When I compile the .bc file into .s file, I tried to use the different jumptable type: all, single, ... e.g. clang -c -emit-llvm test.c llc test.bc -jump-table-type=full -o test-full.s llc test.bc -jump-table-type=single -o test-single.s The tested C source code is like: void foo() {

On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 06:54:55PM -0700, Reid Kleckner wrote: > I think it's a little scary to assume things about LLVM's x86 code > generation. I haven't really finished the codegen side of the change, but > I'm pretty sure in it's current state it will emit extra loads and stores, > even if they are unnecessary. Right, I had similar concerns. Now that I've