similar to: [LLVMdev] function instead of 'goto' in C backend

Dear LLVM guys, Hi. I first became to be interested in the compiler work, especially LLVM, since last October, still I'm a novice on here. (My major is not CS, either. :-\) Please forgive my ignorance. LLVM optimization and other tools are really fantastic. However I don't want LLVM breaks my 'for' statement in C code into basic blocks during compiling. I'm sure this sounds

Thank you for reminding me the notion of the basic block. Of course, I know all the assembly takes the form of BBs and is divided into units of BB. OK. It looks better for me to explain what I wanted to do more clear from the first. Actually, I am working on emitting out an assembly of VM by using LLVM. LLVM assembly looks similar with this VM assembly except BB. The VM assembly does not have the

Xi, I just installed VS2005 pro w/ SP1 for Win Vista. Thanks, Seung ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:36:43 +0800 >From: "Xi Wang" <xi.wang at gmail.com> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there someone tried LLVM 2.1 on Visual Studio 2005? >To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >I'm sorry but did you

Hello. My name is Seung Jae Lee. I'd like to ask you onething about converting to ARM assembly code. I saved the simplest C code shown in your LLVM webpage as 'hello.c' And I made 'hello.bc' by "$ llvm-gcc hello.c -o hello". In order to make ARM assembly code, I typed "llc -march=arm hello.bc -o hello.arm" But, I met this error. llc: ARMISelDAGToDAG.cpp:73:

Thank you for your kind explanation. I did it as you mentioned. That is, I set '-march=x86 hello.bc' in the Command Arguments. (I also set my compiled LLC, i.e., LLVM_ROOT_DIR\win32\debug\llc.exe, in the property name Command.) But, when I made a breakpoint in main( ) of llc.cpp and then started to debug I found the 'InputFilename'(llc.cpp:176) is shown like {???}. Therefore it

Hello. Nice to meet you. My name is Seung Jae Lee, a graduate student in UIUC CEE, who is working in NCSA for the present. Nowadays I am trying to develop LLVM backend to spit out CHiMPS assembly code. In the process, I installed LLVM codes on my home directory in the host computer. But I don't think it was installed properly. While bootstrapping the LLVM C/C++ Front-End, I met several

try here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/inger this project have a ebook (Compiler Construction: A Practical Approach) that covers some backend code generation techniques. On 2/1/07, Seung Jae Lee <lee225 at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Can you recommend any good book or reference for backend implementation? I skimmed some compiler books but it seemed to be more about front-end, parsing,

Thank you for this reply. If so, is there any way to merge basic blocks into a single one? Thanks, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 22:27:38 +0200 >From: Basile STARYNKEVITCH <basile at starynkevitch.net> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM assembly without basic block >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Seung

Ok, here are a few suggestions and comments: 1) LLVM has the capabilities to do everything that you are trying to re-implement. 2) Have you looked at the C backend? It recreates loops. It may not create "for" loops but you can hack on it to do that. 3) The way you are converting out of SSA is wrong. You will suffer from lost copies. You should look at using demotePHI(). see

Thank you so much but could you tell me a little bit more in detail about that you suggested? Sorry, I'm just a greenhorn. Thanks, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 21:26:14 -0500 >From: "David A. Greene" <greened at obbligato.org> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] not to break 'for' statement into basic blocks >To: llvmdev at

Dear Prof.Adve and Bill, I deeply appreciate your comments and concerns. (Please forgive my late response. I've tried some more cases to make this issue) As Prof.Adve mentioned, I need to explain exactly what my problem is, but I have no good ability that I can explain it in this plain text space. For this reason, I made a .pdf file and linked it as follows:

On 19/07/2007 01:29:18, Seung Jae Lee (lee225 at uiuc.edu) wrote: > Somebody in this dev-list alreday did it with LLVM. I guess you are speaking about Bruno Cardoso Lopes ? I can see there is a MIPS implementation in LLVM repository but it looks like uncomplete (that is, I'm not even sure it can compile any source). What I hope is to have a complete MIPS implementation so I can adapt

Hi Seung, It should be fairly straight-forward to do in LLVM. Once you identify the loops, then identify the PHI nodes that you need to convert, then apply the transformation below. The fine details on how to create an instruction and replace one instruction with another are documented in the docs section and in other code. :-) One thing to be careful of, if you convert a variable like

Bill, Depending on what Seung's problem is, converting *out* of SSA form may actually be the wrong thing to do. Seung needs to explain exactly problem he is unable solve using SSA form. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org/ On Jan 28, 2008, at 1:10 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi Seung, > > It should be fairly straight-forward to do in LLVM. Once you

Thank you so much for your reply, Chris. If so, can I ask you two things more? First, is there any way to have various optimizations on LLVM assembly such as -O options in llvmc? llvm-gcc doesn't seem to be working for these -O options... Second, I'm still not sure about difference between *.s and *.ll. LLVM assembly *.s file can be made from llvm-gcc -S. Another assembly *.ll file comes

Hello, guys. I just wonder if there is any way to spit out LLVM assembly without any basic block division. E.g., If I emit LLVM assembly for the following simple code: ------------------------------------------------------------ void f_loop(long* c, long sz) { long i; for (i = 0; i < sz; i++) { long offset = i * sz; long* out = c + offset; out[i] = 0; } }

According to the instruction manual of this target machine, 'goto' should not be used in C code. :-/ Could you tell me a little more about your advice as to using 'reg2mem', if you're fine? Thank you so much, Anton. Best, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:23:27 +0400 >From: Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> >Subject:

No, No... That's OK. I appreciate your concerns. Seung Jae Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:30:59 -0700 >From: Jeff Cohen <jeffc at jolt-lang.org> >Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] adding a target for "-march=" option in Visual Studio (Resolved) >To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > >Seung Jae Lee wrote:

Hello. I am Seung Jae Lee making a LLVM backend for a new architecture XCC. I found that the instructions use variable names which actually used in the source coding for operands unlike most architectures which use usually register names or addresses as operands. LLVM backend examples such as ARM, SPARC seem to use register names or addresses for operands. How can I implement this on my backend?

Thanks--I was offline when I wrote it, couldn't Google. Found it in about 5 seconds once I was back online. Second question: I'm getting various build errors relating (it seems) to configuration: can't find windows.h and so forth. Where (or to whom) is the best place to report these and iterate until we fix them? Ted Neward Java, .NET, XML Services Consulting, Teaching, Speaking,