similar to: [LLVMdev] non-signed integer Type

Hi I'm working on switching from generating textual .ll files in my front end to using the llvm-c IR builder API instead. One thing that I really miss is that when I dump() to a .ll file for debugging, the type names are worse than useless, because many types have been merged with unrelated types that happen to have the same shape. This becomes very confusing when trying to map back to the

I run into this problem as well. However, given the way LLVM represents types and their names, there is not an easy solution to this problem. I don't know of any real workaround that will not change the semantics of the code. - Daniel On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 4:42 PM, Scott Graham <scott.llvm at h4ck3r.net> wrote: > Hi > > I'm working on switching from generating textual

Hi For .LL like: define void @Func() { %var1 = alloca double store double 0x40bb580000000000, double* %var1 ret void } ppc32 output is: ... lis 3, 16571 ori 3, 3, 22528 li 4, 0 stw 3, 8(1) stw 4, 12(1) ... I'm using the PPC backend's output as the "bytecode" for an interpreter that I would like to be able to run

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Scott Graham <scott.llvm at h4ck3r.net> wrote: >> I'm using the PPC backend's output as the "bytecode" for an interpreter >> that I would like to be able to run on both little- and big-endian >> platforms. The split stw's mean

Hi Our front end is written in a CLR language, and we're currently interacting with the middle/back-end by writing out .ll files. This was convenient to get started with, but they're getting to a "huge and unwieldy" stage now. I was wondering if anyone's attempted writing proxy/wrapper C++/CLI classes so that the IR API can be used directly from managed languages. Any

Hi I'm using the llvm-c wrapper, and trying to build some recursive types (using released 2.3). I get an assert on trying to create a second opaque pointer type after refining a first. The first time through creating an opaque pointer type, a new type is created and returned from PointerType::get, but the second time, ValueType (the opaque type) is found in the PointerTypes map, which seems

Shucks, I figured as much, but I was hoping... Relatedly, it would be convenient to have a way to reliably influence which name gets chosen for the merged type. If I could at least have things like "%ObjHeader" not turn into "%SomeUserCodeType_NestedUserClass_Blorp", that would go a long way. scott On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org>

On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > defined would be almost always stored in one byte instead of the present > > usual two. > > So, if I get you correctly, you're advocating the creation of a Type::CharTyID > in the TypeID enumeration that is always written as a single byte? Note that > right now all ASCII values ( <128 ) will be written as a single byte for

On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 4:23 PM, Scott Graham <scott.llvm at h4ck3r.net> wrote: > I'm using the PPC backend's output as the "bytecode" for an interpreter > that I would like to be able to run on both little- and big-endian > platforms. The split stw's mean that i32s of the f64 are swapped in > memory on little-endian (thus foiling native-code interop).

Take a look at this page. It might give you more information: http://vmkit.llvm.org/ -bw On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Scott Graham <scott.llvm at h4ck3r.net> wrote: > Hi > > Our front end is written in a CLR language, and we're currently > interacting with the middle/back-end by writing out .ll files. This > was convenient to get started with, but they're

Hi When using lli on Win32 (vs.net-built), on any non-trivial code, I get the following abort ERROR: Program used external function '_alloca' which could not be resolved! Checking the assembly from llc, the first alloca call is to allocate local vars in _main. Is this just the state of the code at 2.0 when built with vs.net, or is there something that I've managed to mis-build

At 05:09 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote: >On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > defined would be almost always stored in one byte instead of the present > > > usual two. > > > > So, if I get you correctly, you're advocating the creation of a > Type::CharTyID > > in the TypeID enumeration that is always written as a single byte? Note > that >

I have ended up making a rather complicated type system to handle quite a few things, all stemming from the fact that the integer type has no sign information (even if it did not use it, would be nice to look at it in my code generator to so I can put out one function type or another when something like udiv/sdiv is called). I essentially have a variant that holds either an llvm::Type* (which at

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 9:09 PM, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > I've checked that Intellisense can jump to an unlisted header file when > you ask for a declaration on a cpp file. So, what's the benefit of > having the header files explicitly listed in the solution? If it is for > text searching, maybe putting them on just one project (Hello.lib, for >

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > I set up a buildbot for llvm at http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/waterfall > It builds every single revision of llvm, runs the testsuite, and > reports the results. It takes about 3 minutes per build+test right > now (it's an 8 core machine). > > Currently i have it building x86_64-linux.

On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Devang Patel <dpatel at apple.com> wrote: > >> Anyone have any clever way of inserting a comment (or >> comment-ish-thing) that will make it to an .ll that's generated at the >> same time as writing out the bitcode? >> ... > > Try using llvm.var.annotation intrinsic. Thanks for the suggestion. I'd tried doing that by

Hi Any reason why the CMake build doesn't include more target backends under MSVC? (Currently only x86). I just tried turning on all the backends and everything seems to build OK. I don't know if they all run correctly. If there isn't a good reason, attached is the trivial patch to include all targets. scott -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was

Hi, attached is a patch to improve including targets other than X86 in CMake MSVC builds. When adding libs to link, rather than always using LLVMX86CodeGen and LLVMX86AsmPrinter, it grabs the correct ones. It also adds "force-link-ints" to the various TargetMachine cpp files, as well as X86AsmPrinter and PPCAsmPrinter. These are needed to be able to encourage the Win32 linker to

Argiris Kirtzidis <akyrtzi at gmail.com> writes: > Óscar Fuentes wrote: >> All the headers in include/llvm? Or just those local to each library? >> > > All the headers. It's a pain to manually update the project files but it > will be a bigger pain trying to use them without the include files.. > included. There are almost 300 headers under include/llvm.

Hello, I'm trying to port the XL compiler (http://xlr.sf.net) to use the LLVM back-end. So far, little trouble doing so. But there is one aspect of the semantics of the LLVM IR that surprises me. Why are the call, declare and define "halfway through" ABI conventions? I think it's the right thing to have a single high level node for each call, as opposed to separate