similar to: [LLVMdev] X86TargetMachineModule not helping

Nicolas, In Visual Studio 2005, you can force the linker to include specific symbols. In your project, under "Configuration Properties/Linker/Input/Force Symbol References", try adding _X86TargetMachineModule. Hope that helps! Stein Pedersen _____ From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Nicolas Capens Sent: 27. mai 2008 00:11

Hola Aaron, Just having that code didn't work since the linker still stripped it out, so I have that function called from the code in the system that actually is being used by our app. Kinda grubby, but I include: #include "llvm/lib/Target/X86/X86TargetMachine.h" Which is in the LLVM lib, not the LLVM inc directory. This little maneuver made our Mac builds really unhappy, so

Thanks for your response Chuck. >From this and the other responses to my question, it looks like I'm including all the right object files, so it must be something with Visual Studio stripping "dead" code. So, given your response Chuck, I have a few questions. First, what exactly is the code that VStudio seems to be stripping? I might be able to figure out how to prevent it

Óscar Fuentes wrote: > srs <skaflotten at gmail.com> writes: > > >>>> While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of >>>> issues: >>>> >>>> 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake >>>> created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the >>>>

srs <skaflotten at gmail.com> writes: >>>> Try adding this to the link command of your executable: >>>> >>>> /INCLUDE:_X86TargetMachineModule >>>> >>>> I should document this somehow. >>>> >>> Yeah, this is necessary, but not sufficient. I also had to link with >>> ExecutionEngineBindings.obj

>> While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of >> issues: >> >> 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake >> created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the >> ExecutionEngine::create call always returned NULL. The fix was to also >> link with JIT.obj (thanks aKor for pointing me in the

srs <skaflotten at gmail.com> writes: >>> While testing my compiler on win32 in JIT mode, I ran into a couple of >>> issues: >>> >>> 1. I linked the compiler with the lib files resulting from the cmake >>> created VS.NET build. While everything built just fine, the >>> ExecutionEngine::create call always returned NULL. The fix was to

Paolo Invernizzi wrote: > There was a similar problem some time ago, and was resolved with alloca. > I think it's a better solution to use the stack instead of the heap... I tend to agree, but the constructors won't get called if it's an object array -- anyway, this particular case there was no objects, just pointers and bools so alloca should be fine. I'll leave it to

These two subclasses of X86TargetMachine are basically identical. The *only* thing that's different is the constructor. And that *only* differs in the is64Bit argument that it passes to the X86TargetMachine constructor. Replacing the hard-coded 'true' or 'false' with 'Triple(TT).getArch()==Triple::x86_64' makes them *actually* identical. Can we just ditch the

Hi all, I'm trying to implement a floating-point 'min' and 'max' operation using select. For 'min' I get the expected x86 assembly minss instruction, but for 'max' I get a branch instead of maxss. The corresponding C syntax code looks like this: float z = (x > y) ? x : y; Any clues? Could someone maybe explain to me the basics of

On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:35 AM, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Chris, > > It's not broken, but the performance is crippled. > > I noticed that the code still contains some MMX instructions, but several > operations get expanded (apparently swizzling and such get expanded to a > large number of byte moves). I think some changes related to

Hi all, Please consider committing the attached patch. I believe the SSE2 packsswb, packssdw and packuswb intrinsics have an incorrect return type. Thanks, Nicolas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090609/85ed0b5e/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A

Hi all, I'd like to be able to write JIT-compiled code to a Windows DLL. I have no idea where to start though. Does LLVM already offer some support for this? Or would it be straightforward to write my own DLL writer (no advanced features needed)? Or maybe I could use an external linker? All help highly appreciated! Cheers, Nicolas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi all, I'm a little bit worried about the sheer size of the resulting binaries of a project using LLVM. The medium large project for which I'm planning to use it (which currently uses a custom dynamic code generator), produces a compact 1.6 MB binary. When I compile LLVM's simple 'Fibonacci' example project the executable is 2.6 MB. I realize LLVM is a complex and

Hi all, It looks like vector spills don't use aligned moves even though the stack is aligned. This seems like an optimization opportunity. The attached replacement of fibonacci.cpp generates x86 code like this: 03A70010 push ebp 03A70011 mov ebp,esp 03A70013 and esp,0FFFFFFF0h 03A70019 sub esp,1A0h ... 03A7006C movups xmmword ptr

Assign the bug to me and I'll fix it in TOT next week! Thanks for narrowing it down! On Wednesday, September 22, 2010, Nicolas Capens <nicolas.capens at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I figured it out: > 112804 causes 64-bit UNPCKLBW to no longer be selected for certain cases. > 112805 is benign. > 112806 causes 64-bit UNPCKHBW to no longer be selected for

This thread confuses me. I thought Chris said that LLVM 2.8 will not lower generic vectors to MMX because it breaks x87 code, and I didn't see an answer to your question about a switch to tell the code generator otherwise. However, you're complaining that MMX performance is subpar, even though LLVM 2.8 isn't supposed to generate MMX instructions. Can someone clarify the situation

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 2:58 PM, Nicolas Capens<nicolas at capens.net> wrote: > Please consider committing the attached patch. I believe the SSE2 packsswb, > packssdw and packuswb intrinsics have an incorrect return type. If we really wanted to do this, an AutoUpgrade patch would be necessary for backwards-compatibility. I'm not sure it's worth bothering. -Eli

Hi All, I found a regression which triggers the asserts: "Binary operator types must match!" and "Op types should be identical!". It's happening with a piece of vector code, and the asserts happen because a logic operation is attempted between a vector and a scalar (which is not present in the original code, but created by InstCombine). It's caused by revision

Hi all, I was wondering how to use variations of intrinsic functions that take a memory operand. Take for example the SSE4.1 pmovsxbd instruction. One variant takes two XMM registers, while another has a 32-bit memory location as source operand. The latter is quite interesting if you know you're reading from memory anyway, and if it's not 16-byte aligned. It looks like LLVM's