similar to: [LLVMdev] Files were renamed

Hello, Bill > And wasn't the llvm-gcc sources supposed to be there as well? Not yet. I think this should be the second stage. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hi Anton, You're already a part of the llvm development team by participating actively on the llvm development list :) If you wish we can put you on: http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/Developers.html Great to have you on the team, welcome! We (Jeff, Morten, Paolo, the rest of the team and I) are looking forward to cooperate with you and to push win32 and mingw versions even further to stable and

How can a frontend tell LLVM to put a function argument on stack/register/etc? On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: >> Ah, got it. >> Sounds like we might need to introduce CC_X86_Win32_MSVC_ThisCall then?.. > No, we should not. It should be properly expanded in frontend. > > -- > With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov >

I tried to ask for 32 and that didn't seem to help. MallocInst also seemed to ignore the 16 byte directive. For now, I'm just issuing all my loads as unaligned and that's working ok. Thanks, Chuck. -----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 10:35 AM To: asl at

Thanks Antont and Gabor.. I will use the iterator instead.. On 5/11/07, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> wrote: > Hello, Ferad. > > > I switched to the upcoming version 2.0 branch and porting my code from > > 1.9. Thanks there is not a lot to do. I found that > > Instruction::getNext and Instruction::getPrev are private. Is this > > intentional? >

Chuck, > It is dying trying to store a our working vector into one of the LLVM > vectors created on the stack. Despite the align-16 directive on the > alloca instruction, it is not always aligning to a 16-byte boundary. The stack is not necessary 16 bytes aligned on linux/windows. The vector is really sotred aligned relative to %esp, but %esp value is not good. This is known problem

Hello, Bill. > Has anyone gotten the latest/greatest sources from the LLVM-GCC open > source server lately? No. It's still at rev 319 (as of 29.04). -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Bill, > When I try to compile on Darwin now, I get this: Could you please provide LLVM bytecode, where bug is reproducible with llc? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

Hello, Rafael > With this patch I was able to bootstrap gcc in linux x86-64 with > shared libraries enabled :-) Awesome! But... -ENOPATCH :( -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

> Ah, got it. > Sounds like we might need to introduce CC_X86_Win32_MSVC_ThisCall then?.. No, we should not. It should be properly expanded in frontend. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

2013/3/28 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: >> How can having an MSVC compatible compiler be to the detriment of clang and >> llvm? No one is trying to break mingw here, merely add support for something > Just to make stuff clear: I just wanted proper naming which will be > non-confusing. Right now we have: > - isTargetWindows() which really means

Nothing... I'll show you all the info related to: The intrinsic: def int_soru_sre : Intrinsic<[llvm_void_ty, llvm_i32_ty], [IntrWriteMem]>; The lower instruction (in MIPS): class SORUI<bits<6> op, dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern, InstrItinClass itin>: FI<op, outs, ins, asmstr, pattern, itin> { let isBarrier = 1; // or call,

Hello, Bill > It may be my lack of understanding, but it appears that having -- > enable-eh set during compilation of llvm-gcc is causing extra files > to be compiled. Oh, no. They are always compiled. > They do. However, it doesn't seem to stop it from failing during > compilation of unwind-dw2.c for libgcc -- it has > "__builtin_eh_return" in it. During

Hello, Daniel. > glibc < 2.4 don't reliably keep stack at 16 bytes through some calls > (qsort, etc), but otherwise, it stays 16 byte aligned. Interesting, but why in this case stuff like 'force_align_arg_pointer' required? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.

On May 24, 2006, at 5:03 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Ashwin. > > You wrote Wednesday, May 24, 2006, 11:25:11 AM: > > AC> "Pass::getClassPassInfo<PassClass>() "Pass class not > AC> registered!"" failed: file > AC> "/cygdrive/c/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/PassAnalysisSupport.h", > line 76 > AC> Aborted > Same

> How can having an MSVC compatible compiler be to the detriment of clang and > llvm? No one is trying to break mingw here, merely add support for something Just to make stuff clear: I just wanted proper naming which will be non-confusing. Right now we have: - isTargetWindows() which really means "msvc-compabile" - isTargetWin32() which means "everything on windows", so

Hello Anton Thu, 3 Aug 2006 23:13:52 +0400 you wrote: > I won't be available for the next 10-12 hours if you'll need some more > files. Well. I have one idea. Could you please execute "sort --version" from your cygwin shell and let me know, whether it's GNU one (it should reply with the words "textutils") or windows-supplied one (it should just give you and

According to the instruction manual of this target machine, 'goto' should not be used in C code. :-/ Could you tell me a little more about your advice as to using 'reg2mem', if you're fine? Thank you so much, Anton. Best, Seung J. Lee ---- Original message ---- >Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 02:23:27 +0400 >From: Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru> >Subject:

You can always ask for > 16 byte stack alignment. :-) Evan On Sep 30, 2007, at 10:47 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Daniel. > >> glibc < 2.4 don't reliably keep stack at 16 bytes through some calls >> (qsort, etc), but otherwise, it stays 16 byte aligned. > Interesting, but why in this case stuff like 'force_align_arg_pointer' > required? >

Hello, llvm-dev. thank you for your interest in my question. Currently, I compiled simple c source code (hello.c) in lunux and windows, and I tried to simple test . first case: hello.bc (compiled with "-emit-llvm" on windows) -> lli.exe(linux). second case: hello.bc (compiled with "-emit-llvm" on linux) -> lli.exe(windows). second case return good result. but First case