similar to: [LLVMdev] Automatic assembler generation?

Quoting Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > I've just started looking into code generation and have a newbie > question: Is there enough information in the .td files to make a tool to > automatically generate an assembler from them? Is a project like that > in the works? > > -Rich Hi your question is reasonable, but it is probably out of scope for LLVM.

Hi, Nikolaos Kavvadias wrote: > Quoting Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > > I've just started looking into code generation and have a newbie > > question: Is there enough information in the .td files to make a > > tool to automatically generate an assembler from them? Is a project > > like that in the works? > > your question is reasonable,

Hi Duncan >> br i1 %38, label %17, label %39 >> ; <label>:39 ; preds = %._crit_edge >> ret void >> >> However, ";" is a comment-line character. How is this interpreted, as a >> meta-comment? (a semantically important comment)? > > it's just a comment and has no semantic comment. You can delete

Hi Justin, >> Has anyone had similar problems with the NVPTX backend? Shouldn't this >> code be linked to the AsmPrinter library for NVPTX (already)? > > What do you mean by "doesn't work"? The AsmPrinter library really houses > the MCInst printer, which isn't implemented for NVPTX yet. The older > assembly printer works just fine. This is

Hi, > Can you post the llc command line you're using? Can you post an LLVM IR > file that causes this behavior? yes: ${LLVM_PATH}/bin/llc -o helloworld.s -march=nvptx helloworld.ll where LLVM_PATH my local installation path for LLVM. Also attaching helloworld.c: #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { printf("Hello World!\n"); return 0; } and helloworld.ll:

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:09 PM, <nkavv at physics.auth.gr> wrote: > Hi Justin, > > > Has anyone had similar problems with the NVPTX backend? Shouldn't this >>> code be linked to the AsmPrinter library for NVPTX (already)? >>> >> >> What do you mean by "doesn't work"? The AsmPrinter library really houses >> the MCInst

Hi Duncan >>> br i1 %38, label %17, label %39 >>> ; <label>:39 ; preds = %._crit_edge >>> ret void >>> >>> However, ";" is a comment-line character. How is this interpreted, as a >>> meta-comment? (a semantically important comment)? >> >> it's just a comment and has no

Hi Nikolaos, Following commands work great for me. $ clang -S -emit-llvm -target nvptx -x cl -include clc/clctypes.h ../data-types/scalar.cl $ llc -mcpu=sm_30 scalar.s You can follow Justin's blog [1]. It helped me a lot to understand where to start. [1] http://jholewinski.org/blog/llvm-3-0-ptx-backend/ Best, Ankur On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:40 PM, Justin Holewinski < justin.holewinski

Hi all, i'm writing a TXL (http://www.txl.ca) grammar and a revamp of bison/flex grammar for LLVM. I've noticed an inconsistency regarding label naming conventions. For instance, the following is a segment of legit LLVM assembly (human-readable) IR: br i1 %38, label %17, label %39 ; <label>:39 ; preds = %._crit_edge ret void

Alright, couple of points here: 1. Address space 0 is invalid for global variables. This is causing a crash in llc where we use llvm_unreachable() on this case. This is most likely why you're seeing llc run forever. The fix for this is to use address space 1 for globals, which puts them into PTX global memory. On our side, we should provide a meaningful error message in this case. 2. The

Hi all, I'm trying to use the newly added (in LLVM 3.2) NVPTX backend for producing PTX (Parallel Thread eXecution) assembly from simple C programs. While using llc with -march for mips and x86 works, -march=nvptx doesn't work. This seems reasonable since I can see that the libLLVMNVPTXAsmPrinter.a library is about 500 bytes (thus empty). However, the strange thing is that

Hi all, i'm just starting out with LLVM (although i've been observing its evolution since that first release some years ago :) I would like to develop a backend for a generic assembly-like language, called NAC (N-Address Code). More info on NAC can be found here: http://www.nkavvadias.com/hercules/nac-refman.html (HTML) http://www.nkavvadias.com/hercules/nac-refman.pdf (PDF) You

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:20 AM, Ahmed Bougacha <ahmed.bougacha at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM, <nkavv at physics.auth.gr> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > i'm just starting out with LLVM (although i've been observing its > evolution > > since that first release some years ago :) > > > > I would like to develop a

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:46 AM, <nkavv at physics.auth.gr> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm trying to use the newly added (in LLVM 3.2) NVPTX backend for > producing PTX (Parallel Thread eXecution) assembly from simple C programs. > > While using llc with -march for mips and x86 works, -march=nvptx doesn't > work. This seems reasonable since I can see that the >

Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 12:46 PM, <nkavv at physics.auth.gr> wrote: > Hi all, > > i'm just starting out with LLVM (although i've been observing its evolution > since that first release some years ago :) > > I would like to develop a backend for a generic assembly-like language, > called NAC (N-Address Code). More info on NAC can be found here: >

Hi, I just updated from r190763 to r191137 and started getting failures in generated assembly language when debug info is enabled. Here is the test case: // Compile and run for every target. // RUN: %ecc -g -o %t %s && %t // FAIL: %armecc -g -o %t %s && %armrun %t // FAIL: %armebecc -g -o %t %s && %armebrun %t // RUN: %i386ecc -g -o %t %s && %i386run %t // FAIL:

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Richard Pennington" <rich at pennware.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:37:50 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PowerPC] Recent branch too far breakage > > Hi Rich, > > It is hard to tell, but there

Hi there i would like to ask a few questions to the developers responsible for the register allocator(s) design in LLVM (Fernando and other people). First of all, congrats on providing more than one option for register allocation. Now to the questions: 1. I can see the standard algorithms (bigblock, linearscan -- good choice for the JIT and for general use as well, and the other algorithms).

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >>> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >>>