similar to: [LLVMdev] Patch to improve Vim Tablegen syntax file

Hi, I am trying to do a backend to a very simple microcontroller. I have some questions. 1) I have instruction which do "r1 <- r1 op r2", from what I have ssen I must declare them like: let isTwoAddress = 1 in def ADD : FopRR< 0b01010, (outs CPURegs:$sX), (ins CPURegs:$isX, CPURegs:$sY), "ADD $sX, $sY"), [(set

-------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Mikael Lyngvig" <mikael at lyngvig.org> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] An alternate implementation of exceptions Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2009 09:53:29 +0200 (CEST) Size: 6388 URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090906/ca20be9e/attachment.eml>

On Apr 27, 2008, at 7:37 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > Hi, > > I am trying to do a backend to a very simple microcontroller. I have > some > questions. Ok. > 1) I have instruction which do "r1 <- r1 op r2", from what I have > ssen I > must declare them like: > > let isTwoAddress = 1 in > def ADD : FopRR< 0b01010, > (outs

I'm beginning to use the AVR backend. I ran into the problem, that newer (tiny1, mega0) µC as a tiny1614 are not supported. How do I add these to the AVR backend? Thanks!

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: > Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : >> >> Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. >> >> They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM >> libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. >> >> Jose >> > > Are you volontary

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > > I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want a C+ > + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. You don't have the choice in this case, just check your STL header. > > FWIW, I've been involved in a couple of attempts by

> Technically, yes, but we can reword future standards to have the > latitude to give compilation errors for conditions that can be proved > to be false, then the implementation is conforming. We could always > have a flag to control the behavior if people want/need it, though, I > can't hardly see why they'd want it to compile if they assert > something that

Nuno Lopes a écrit : > Hi, > > I have two questions about optimizations performed by llvm. > > Consider these simple functions: > int x(int b) { return b?4:6; } > int y() { return x(0); } > > int x2() { return 5; } > int y2() { return x2(); } > > the optimized bitcode (with clang + opt -std-compiler-opts) is: > define i32 @y(...) nounwind { > entry:

David Vandevoorde a écrit : > On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > > >> David Vandevoorde a écrit : >> >>> I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want >>> a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. >>> >>> >>> >> You must not have written a

Kenneth Boyd a écrit : > Cédric Venet wrote: >> you never seen assert(0 && "Not yet implemented"); ? >> You may want to compile a program like this :) >> > As I see it, under the proposed extension a compile-time false constant > would error "if the code commits to executing it". > > Heuristically, something like > > void

Whoops, mailing list headers still broken, sending to the list this time: On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:35 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Cédric Venet <cedric.venet at laposte.net> wrote: >> So adding an option for adding this flag would be great but not changing the >> default. (The flag is interesting because it can

Thanks! The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this should be simple. Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so on stored? -- Wilhelm Am 04.03.20 um 11:03 schrieb Dylan McKay: > Hey Wilhelm, > > This should be possible by editing the 'AVRDevices.td' [1]TableGen > definitions to add an entry for the newer chip types.

Hi, Oscar > at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list > inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename a > .cpp file. Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding directory? -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

Anton Korobeynikov a écrit : > Hi, Oscar > >> at all, it would be great if you reflect your changes on the file list >> inside the corresponding CMakeLists.txt when you add, remove or rename > a >> .cpp file. > Isn't is possible for cmake just to glob everything in the corresponding > directory? > Hi, It is possible, but it has some drawback. Mainly, it

OvermindDL1 a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:58 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:52 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> / * snip */ >>>>

Le 06/03/2010 11:43, José Fonseca a écrit : > Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. > > They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM > libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. > > Jose > > Are you volontary trying to break everyone build (just to build your own project), or have you no idea of the effect of this change:

Cédric Venet wrote: >> Technically, yes, but we can reword future standards to have the >> latitude to give compilation errors for conditions that can be proved >> to be false, then the implementation is conforming. We could always >> have a flag to control the behavior if people want/need it, though, I >> can't hardly see why they'd want it to

Dan Gohman a écrit : > On Jan 23, 2009, at 3:28 AM, Mondada Gabriele wrote: > > >> Hi, >> I'm implementing storeRegToStackSlot() and, in order to store some >> specific registers (floating point regs and address regs) I've to >> copy them to more standard regs and copy these last ones to the slot. >> I tried to generate instructions that use

On Aug 27, 2009, at 3:07 AM, Cédric Venet wrote: > David Vandevoorde a écrit : >> >> I don't think those are _good_ reasons though: If one doesn't want >> a C+ + function to be inlined, one shouldn't define it inline. >> >> > > You must not have written a lot of C++ template then. (Ha!) > You don't have the choice in this case, just

OvermindDL1 a écrit : > Been trying to build the trunk to test some things for about a week > now using VS8 (VS2k5). Tons of Warnings (like things first being > declared struct, being redefined class and so forth, those need to be > fixed, but are otherwise not harmful), and a *lot* of errors. Being > trunk I figured just the normal trunk-type issues, but it has been > going on