similar to: [LLVMdev] Inline semantics.

On 12/21/07, Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com> wrote: > I'm a little further along now. I've started to put together a simple > driver for Elsa and LLVM that I'm calling "ellsif" (cute name, I think > it works). Er. Hm. Can you explain the name? The problem with names like "ellsif" is that it sounds like "else if". I like the

I'm a little further along now. I've started to put together a simple driver for Elsa and LLVM that I'm calling "ellsif" (cute name, I think it works). The file being compiled is a "printf" function. Here are timing results for optimized and unoptimized runs: [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i -time-actions Adding test/ofmt.i as a preprocessed C file

I'm linking a program (my ellsif driver) that basically brings in most of the LLVM stuff: bitcode reading, optimizations, linking, and target code generation. All of a sudden, I'm getting the following when I run: [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i test/sieve.i -time-actions -O5 <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument 'machine-licm' defined more than once!

On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > I'm a little further along now. I've started to put together a simple > driver for Elsa and LLVM that I'm calling "ellsif" (cute name, I think > it works). > > The file being compiled is a "printf" function. Here are timing > results > for optimized and unoptimized runs: Cool, this is

Hi, I've restarted my Elsa/LLVM project after three months of having real life intrude. I upgraded my LLVM source to the current trunk. I had to make a few changes to my source, e.g. LLVMFoldingBuilder became IRBuilder and several instances of "new" became "Create". Now, a test case that previously succeeded fails. I run the following script: #!/bin/sh if [ 1 -ne 0 ]

Jay Foad wrote: >> I'm linking a program (my ellsif driver) that basically brings in most >> of the LLVM stuff: bitcode reading, optimizations, linking, and target >> code generation. >> >> All of a sudden, I'm getting the following when I run: >> [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i test/sieve.i -time-actions >> -O5 >>

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 21, 2007, at 1:08 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> I'm a little further along now. I've started to put together a simple >> driver for Elsa and LLVM that I'm calling "ellsif" (cute name, I think >> it works). >> >> The file being compiled is a "printf" function. Here are timing >> results

> I'm linking a program (my ellsif driver) that basically brings in most > of the LLVM stuff: bitcode reading, optimizations, linking, and target > code generation. > > All of a sudden, I'm getting the following when I run: > [~/elsa/ellsif] dev% ./ellsif -v test/ofmt.i test/sieve.i -time-actions > -O5 > <premain>: CommandLine Error: Argument

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:40 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> Does Elsa provide an advantage over g++? For me, understanding it is a >> big plus. ;-) In addition, Elsa has a Berkeley-like license which I >> prefer. > > Ok. If you're not planning on extending the front-end, > understandability doesn't really matter ;-). I get

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

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). >>>

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 "syscall\0A\09", "={ax},0,{di},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64 231, i64 %41) nounwind ; <i64> [#uses=2] -Rich

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 "syscall\0A\09", >

----- 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

Daniel Wilkerson wrote: >> I've build gcc many times over the years for different target processors >> and was never able to get my head around it internally. It is incredibly >> complex. I also didn't like the fact that I had to have N copies of gcc >> to support N processors. > > Scott McPeak is rather familiar with the internals of gcc and edg and >

A while back (2012) there were a few messages related to using YAML config files to set up how clang would build stuff, especially for cross compilers. My ELLCC project is entirely cross compilation focused, so today I decided to play around with the config file idea. Right now it only handles replacing a "-target foo" option with the options defined in the file foo in the

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Richard Pennington<rich at pennware.com> wrote: > Richard Pennington wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The enclosed patch preserves debug information about compilation units, >> functions, and line number information when doing bitcode linking. I'm not >> easily able to try this for non-bitcode linking. Could someone familiar

I'm porting the musl C library to ARM Thumb. It looks like inline asm is failing in some cases. Here's one: The lseek system call looks like this: ... off_t result; return syscall(SYS__llseek, fd, offset>>32, offset, &result, whence) ? -1 : result; ... Which eventually goes through this macro: static inline long __syscall5(long n, long a, long b, long c,

Wow! Cool! Hey, if you sign my contributor agreement, we can consider making your Elsa/LLVM compiler an Oink tool. Scott's intention is for Elsa to be basically "done": that is, aside from bug fixes, it shouldn't have more features. Oink is basically a bucket into which to throw tools like this one that use Elsa as a front-end. Daniel On Dec 7, 2007 6:37 AM, Richard

Hi, I know my last question was very vague (i.e. "It stopped working, what went wrong?"), so here is a little more concrete example: If I run the optimizer (opt) on this code snippet with -std-compile-opts the optimizer hangs. ; ModuleID = 'test.ubc' target datalayout =