similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem about "llc -march=msil"

Hi Anton > > > The interesting for me part of the CallInst is printf(i8* noalias %0, i32 > > 123). > > I was diging in doxygen documentation but I really can't see the easy way > to > > compare those instructions and again finish with reinvented (but working) > > wheel ;). > Ah, sorry. I missed that you're doing variadic calls, not casting >

Hi, Artur > // CallSites have equal signatures > bool MSILWriter::cmpCallSite(CallSite A, CallSite B) { >   return (getCallSiteFType(A)==getCallSiteFType(B) && >     A.getAttributes()==B.getAttributes()); > } As it is impossible to honour argument attributes in MSIL I don't see why you should compare attributes. You seems to have the same MSIL call signature for calls

Hi, Artur > The interesting for me part of the CallInst is printf(i8* noalias %0, i32 > 123). > I was diging in doxygen documentation but I really can't see the easy way to > compare those instructions and again finish with reinvented (but working) > wheel ;). Ah, sorry. I missed that you're doing variadic calls, not casting variadic function to definite ones. I think you

Hello, > So, looking for type of callee (not result, but function type!) you'll > obtain the > real "signature" of callee and if you'll strip all pointer cast you'll > obtain the "declaration" (=variadic) type of the callee. Maybe I misunderstood something but I just get the variadic declaration not the real "signature", like this: const

Hello > What does these mean? The bytecode contains call to intrinsic, which is not supported by by MSIL backend. The only intrinsics currently supported 'natively' are vastart, vaend, vacopy. You might want to extend MSILWriter to use default intrinsic lowering mechanism, however, don't expect, that you'll have something workable - in general, you cannot just grab .c file,

Hi all! I gave a shot at compiling core llvm with a Solaris 9 machine. The compiler is FSF gcc 3.4.6. I am building trunk in the release version. So far I did not run tests (no dejagnu installed). Here are my findings: 0) Configuring. I had to suppress the solaris tools by: env AR=/opt/gnu/bin/ar NM=/opt/gnu/bin/nm RANLIB=/opt/gnu/bin/ranlib STRIP=/opt/gnu/bin/strip ../llvm/configure

Hi, Artur Minor comments: > +// Comparision for std::lower_bound used in > MSILWriter::printExternals() > +static bool CompareInstructions(Instruction *A,Instruction *B) > +{ Put brace on the same line as function def. > + if ( !F->use_empty() ) // Print only if used > + { Likewise. Plus use "if (foo)" instead of "if ( foo )". All code

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi, Artur > > >> I'm working on that backend now, so probably I'll send some more patches >> soon. I'd be grateful if you could give me some suggestions how to add >> some test for that backend to the test-suite. On Linux the output code >> could be run on Mono and compared with outputs for other backends but >>

gc-7-integration.patch (+100 -15): include/llvm/CodeGen/LinkAllCodegenComponents.h (+4) include/llvm/CodeGen/SelectionDAGISel.h (+3 -1) include/llvm/CodeGen/AsmPrinter.h (+4) lib/CodeGen/LLVMTargetMachine.cpp (+23 -4) lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter.cpp (+19) lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/SelectionDAGISel.cpp (+36 -8) lib/CodeGen/README.txt (+5) lib/Target/CBackend/CBackend.cpp (+3 -1)

Dear Rudiger, Rüdiger Klaehn wrote: > Hello all. > > is it possible to use LLVM to optimize existing .NET assemblies? > It's in theory possible. LLVM+VMKit already does it for Java classes. > Basically doing the following: > > - read in MSIL and convert into LLVM internal representation > - perform global optimizations on LLVM internal representation > - write

Hello, > As for the state of the MSIL backend of LLVM, I don't think it's for > production use yet. Assemblies have lots of information in them and > maintaining them during the MSIL -> LLVM -> MSIL translations should be > the hard part. This should be pretty hard. MSIL is definitely much more high level than LLVM, that's why significant portion of information will

Hello, I work in Kalray (Montbonnot, France) and I'm PhD student at Universite Joseph Fourier in Grenoble. We want to use LLVM framework for MSIL code generation, which is part of my thesis. Currently I'm still reading LLVM's documentation and I've started completing the MSIL backend for running on Mono. Things that need to be fixed include pointers initialization, call to

Hi Artur, Artur Pietrek wrote: > Hello, > > I work in Kalray (Montbonnot, France) and I'm PhD student at Universite > Joseph Fourier in Grenoble. > We want to use LLVM framework for MSIL code generation, which is part of > my thesis. > Currently I'm still reading LLVM's documentation and I've started > completing the MSIL backend for running on Mono.

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: >> I'm confused. A MSIL front end I can understand, but a back end? How >> will it be used? The GCC-based front ends that come with LLVM generate >> bytecodes that have dependencies on the GCC runtime, which is not going >> to be present in a .NET environment. > > Who said the input has to come

On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info > wrote: > Hello, > > > As for the state of the MSIL backend of LLVM, I don't think it's for > > production use yet. Assemblies have lots of information in them and > > maintaining them during the MSIL -> LLVM -> MSIL translations should be > > the hard part. > This

Hello, Jeff. > I'm confused. A MSIL front end I can understand, but a back end? How > will it be used? The GCC-based front ends that come with LLVM generate > bytecodes that have dependencies on the GCC runtime, which is not going > to be present in a .NET environment. Well. It's LLVM-to-MSIL translator. So, if the source use some unsupported code... The same situation

Hello all. is it possible to use LLVM to optimize existing .NET assemblies? Basically doing the following: - read in MSIL and convert into LLVM internal representation - perform global optimizations on LLVM internal representation - write out optimized MSIL using the existing LLVM backend I presume that the capability to convert MSIL into LLVM internal representation exists somewhere in VMKit.

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I'm confused. A MSIL front end I can understand, but a back end? How > will it be used? The GCC-based front ends that come with LLVM generate > bytecodes that have dependencies on the GCC runtime, which is not going > to be present in a .NET environment. Who said the input has to come through the GCC front-ends? Perhaps this is for

On Thu, 22 Mar 2007, Jeff Cohen wrote: > The problem is worse than I thought. > > MSIL, and .NET in general, defines a specific object model. This object > model is explicitly part of MSIL semantics. LLVM is at a lower level; > it does not have an object model. To do a virtual call, LLVM > instructions must be generated to load a function pointer from a vtable Unlike Java,

Hello, Jeff. > and dereference it. But MSIL is at a higher level, where one simply > uses the callvirt instruction to do a virtual call and no vtable is > supplied or even present. You're right. Consider we will have some FE for MSIL, which will just generate LLVM's "call" instruction with some predefined CC, which will mean "this is virtual call". Backend