similar to: [LLVMdev] CodeGen fails for CallInst with label

Hello everybody, unfortunately, I have some problems using the LLVM assembler parser ... - use llvm-gcc ( llvm-gcc -O0 -S --emit-llvm -o system2.ll system2.c) to translate the following small example into LLVM assembly language: int common_func1() { return 5; } int common_func2(int a) { return a + 5; } void Handler1() { int e = 4; int f = common_func1(); int ret = common_func2(e);

Hi all, I have been experimenting with getting LLVM to build with MSVC8 express. I have succeeded in getting trunk to build and run the Fibonacci example in release mode. I have found various minor problems with the build system. First, it appears not to be able to run the configure subproject commands if there is a space in the directory path. Secondly, it fails to build different subprojects

George, > I have been experimenting with getting LLVM to build with > MSVC8 express. > > I have succeeded in getting trunk to build and run the > Fibonacci example in release mode. I have found various minor > problems with the build system. First, it appears not to be > able to run the configure subproject commands if there is a > space in the directory path.

On Oct 1, 2007, at 11:33 AM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > So does that mean that LLVM can't lower automatically to 8-bit values? There is no inherent reason. LLVM should be able to lower to 8-bit values. It's probably a bug somewhere. In TargetLowering.h: bool isTypeLegal(MVT::ValueType VT) const { return !MVT::isExtendedVT(VT) && RegClassForVT[VT] !=

Thank you Evan, I added the return Type::Int8Ty to the switch statement to get it to work. I don't know if this can have other consequences, I haven't yet verified if the generated Legalized DAG is correct though. A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Evan Cheng Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:23 PM To:

On Oct 3, 2007, at 3:21 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > Thank you Evan, > I added the return Type::Int8Ty to the switch statement to get it to > work. > I don't know if this can have other consequences, I haven't yet > verified > if the generated Legalized DAG is correct though. If this works, please submit a patch. Otherwise please submit a bug

On Oct 8, 2007, at 3:15 PM, Alireza.Moshtaghi at microchip.com wrote: > I am trying to verify the generated DAG after converting from llvm to > DAG, however I'm not sure if this is correct or not. > Here is the situation: > In order to get LLVM to lower to 8-bit I have to define only 8-bit > registers and the pointer size also to be 8-bit. > Doing so, the attached DAG is

I am trying to verify the generated DAG after converting from llvm to DAG, however I'm not sure if this is correct or not. Here is the situation: In order to get LLVM to lower to 8-bit I have to define only 8-bit registers and the pointer size also to be 8-bit. Doing so, the attached DAG is generated for a load:i16. I have problem understanding this DAG in two places: 1)As you can see the

Evan, The machine is 8 bit, and of course all registers are 8-bit too. Memory access on this machine is a bit different. The memory is banked into banks of 256-byte, and you can select the active bank using a bank select register. All instructions can access the memory with an 8-bit operand, so in that sense the address space can be viewed as 256-byte long. On the other hand, there are three

What is the difference between a CallInst and an InvokeInst in LLVM? Is an InvokeInst a CallInst that can throw an exception? Thanks, Ryan

Hello All, I'm developing timing analysis tool using LLVM. After several analysis phases, I want to instantiate several instructions in the basic block. Instructions that I try to instantiate are like below; call void (int)* %waitABC(int 10) %tmp = call int (int, int*)* %doABC(int %i, int* %total) I think I should use 'CallInst' class in 'Instructions.h' file. How I could

On Jul 11, 2007, at 4:55 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 11 July 2007 17:03, Devang Patel wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> llvm-gcc-4-2 development branch is now open for development at >> >> llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4-2 >> >> It is not yet ready, it can not even bootstrap. I welcome LLVM >> developers to test and apply fixes! > >

Reid, when gcc-4.0 lands, please send around the svn switch --relocate OLDURL NEWURL magic incantation. Just a reminder :-) Thanks, Gabor

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007, David Greene wrote: >> I can send an llvm-gcc patch for someone to apply, or if the current >> llvm-gcc is going to be put under subversion soon I can wait for that and >> commit the changes myself. Either way, we will want the CallInst and >> llvm-gcc changes to happen as close together in time as possible to >> minimize the chance of disrupting

On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:30 AM, Edward Lee wrote: > It seems like LLVM happily creates function calls that pass in labels > but doesn't know how to emit them. Yep, this isn't supported. We can't quite enforce it as invalid at this moment, but don't expect it to work. The only think you can do with labels is branch/switch/invoke to them and use them as the block operand

On Apr 19, 2008, at 12:04 PM, Edward Lee wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > wrote: >> On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:30 AM, Edward Lee wrote: >>> It seems like LLVM happily creates function calls that pass in >>> labels >>> but doesn't know how to emit them. >> Yep, this isn't supported. We

On Apr 19, 2008, at 1:30 PM, Edward Lee wrote: > On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> > wrote: >> No. The reason we don't allow this is because it violates the CFG. > So if I *don't* violate the CFG, would I still need to do something > close to "big and nasty"? It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > It sounds like you're doing something STM like, have you contacted > Torvald to see if he has ideas or insight? > http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-02-23-TRANSACT-TangerObjBased.html Yeah, this is TM-like with the begin/end/abort+rollback. Thanks for the pointer, but it seems like Tanger's

Hi I mean when I have in my program pointer to a function how should I build IR to call the function by the pointer? Or how can I create llvm::Function with a pointer to a function? I want to have something like this: int factorial (int n) { return n==0 ? 1 : n*factorial(n-1); } typedef int (*intFunc) (int); intFunc fptr = factorial; Value * N = ConstantInt::get(Type::Int32Ty,10);

Never mind, I used ExecutionEngine's InstallLazyFunctionCreator and DisableSymbolSearching to cause malloc and free calls to be handled by my logging functions. Sorry for the unnecessary list mail. Is it possible to find out the size and beginning pointer of the current stack frame, from a function operating outside of the virtual machine, but called by a function within it? Thanks, Daniel