similar to: [LLVMdev] Sparc assembly syntax

OK, so the next thing I found in Sparc world is that sparc-elf-as doesn't understand .bss as a directive for some reason. I modified the Sparc code generator to output .section ".bss" and that works just fine. My (temporary) solution is a hack, however: ================================================================== --- SparcAsmPrinter.cpp (revision 720) +++

On Jun 6, 2008, at 11:55 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael Espindola wrote: >> 2008/6/6 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: >>> Hello, Rafael >>> >>> Awesome! But... -ENOPATCH :( >> >> Attached now. > > Hi Rafael, > > Thanks a lot for working on this! > > I have one question about the

Hello, Richard > My question is: What is the "right" way to do this? I looked at the Mips > code generator a little bit and it feels a little more modern. Is that > correct? Right. There was some huge asmprinters changes recently. Only MIPS and X86 wewre converted so far. If you want - I can try to convert Sparc on next week. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

Hello, > If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another > version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I > can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just > ask me what you need. This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider using current svn top of tree, not 2.3 release. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

2008/9/21 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: > Hello, > >> If anybody has an idea of how to fix this (other than using another >> version of gcc because I am sick of compiling), I would appreciate. I >> can offer backtraces or shell access if anybody is interested, just >> ask me what you need. > This was fixed couple of months ago. Please consider

Hi, Chris > If the assembler is a limitation, the best solution would be to add a > direct PECOFF writer. There is a start of direct ELF and Macho writers > already in the tree. They are not production quality, but could be a > useful place to start looking. Well, maybe. But in any case I doubt there will be 'open' support for CV debug format :) -- WBR, Anton

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael Espindola wrote: > 2008/6/6 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: > > Hello, Rafael > > > > Awesome! But... -ENOPATCH :( > > Attached now. Hi Rafael, Thanks a lot for working on this! I have one question about the patch; why did you choose too add a new enum, PICCallStyle, instead of reusing (possibly with some

Hello, I am currently facing an issue at linking stage when compiling basic C code for an embedded PPC32 platform and linking with LLD. For external symbol linkage LLVM appears to use PLT which results in generating a R_PPC_PLTREL24 relocation, that is not support by LDD. Therefore even such a basic example cannot be built: /* s.c */ int f() { return 0; } /* t.c */ int f(); int _start() {

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

Any code that I generate for the Sparc fails at assembly time using a gas assembler built for the Sparc. I get code like the following from the code generator: .text .align 16 .globl main .type main, #function main: save -96, %o6, %o6 and get a syntax error on the save instruction. I think sparc syntax should be: .text .align

On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:52 AMPDT, Richard Pennington wrote: > Any code that I generate for the Sparc fails at assembly time using a > gas assembler built for the Sparc. > > I get code like the following from the code generator: > > save -96, %o6, %o6 > > and get a syntax error on the save instruction. > > I think sparc syntax should be: > > main: >

Chris Lattner wrote: > This is probably a difference between the sun and GNU assemblers. > There is no current sparc maintainer, so feel free to change it if one > way works better for you. Hi Chris, Here's the fix: Index: SparcRegisterInfo.cpp =================================================================== --- SparcRegisterInfo.cpp (revision 700) +++

It seems that the || should be && here? /// IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr - Return true if the subtarget allows calls /// to immediate address. bool X86Subtarget::IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr(const TargetMachine &TM) const { if (Is64Bit) return false; return isTargetELF() || TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static; } For example, if you are doing ELF PIC (i.e. for a shared

> Yes, please remove PICCallStyle and have printPLT check for pic > relocation model and Subtarget.isTargetELF(). Done. > And where you are modifying this part of the code. Please rename > printGOT, printStub, and printPLT to something that indicates they are > predicate functions. Perhaps shouldPrintGOT, etc.? Done. Updated patch attached. > Thanks, > > Evan Cheers,

Hal, I very well understand that LDD may not be in a good state for PPC32, and it would definitely need some improvements sooner or later. In fact I even submitted a patch adding a relocation to ldd just a few hours ago. However, this particular case is not related to LDD, it is a design issue and furthermore a regression in LLVM itself. I checked gcc, and neither does it try to use PLT and

On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:57 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jul 31, 2008, at 4:52 AMPDT, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> Any code that I generate for the Sparc fails at assembly time using a >> gas assembler built for the Sparc. >> >> I get code like the following from the code generator: >> >> save -96, %o6, %o6 >> >> and get a syntax

Hello, Chuck > I've had a look at the stubs before and I think I'm circumventing them > in the example program since I populate the table and compile the > functions in the order so that things never need to be done lazily, but > I'll look further. Well, anyway stubs are definitely wrong from windows64 and this should be fixed, otherwise funny stuff can happen from time to

Hello, Kevin > build process I described in my original message. So the difference is > more subtle; maybe a difference in the layout of structs or something. Also, there can be another ABI differences. > llvmoutput.c:17976: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of > 'longjmp' differ in signedness Hrm, are you using setjmp/longjmp stuff? They're definitely not

Hello, Kevin. > Well, I already use custom includes with these options: "-nostdlib > -nostdinc -Ipsptoolchain/psp/include > -Ipsptoolchain/lib/gcc/psp/4.1.0/include". But that seems not enough. > GCC has some target-specific behaviour compiled in? Well, in general - yes. However, I'm not sure up to which margin. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

Hello, Bill > This merge should go *much* more smoothly than the last merge -- it > could hardly be worse, right? ;-) I already did a test compile of > llvm-test with the patch and it compiled the programs without a > problem. Devang is currently testing it as well so that I have a > second opinion. One thing, which we already saw: please carefully check, that you won't