similar to: [LLVMdev] Simple stack machine

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Simple stack machine"

2008 Jun 19
2
[LLVMdev] Backend for the ZPU - a stack based / zero operand CPU
Hi all, Zylin has implemented the world smallest 32 bit CPU with a GCC backend. (I shall stand corrected if anyone claims & proves otherwise :-) Implementing a GCC backend for a zero operand/stack based architecture proved pretty tricky, but I'm quite pleased with the resulting code. I did make alterations to the architecture to make it fit GCC without sacrificing CPU size. I have been
2008 Jun 22
1
[LLVMdev] Backend for the ZPU - a stack based / zero operand CPU
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008, [ISO-8859-1] ?yvind Harboe wrote: >> The ZPU has two instructions that I'd also like to use. These instructions >> can push a value from deeper down on the stack and also pop a value >> from the stack and store them deeper down on the stack. > > Sounds like the Intel X87 floating point stack, which we support. GCC does as well. Supporting floating
2008 Jun 20
1
[LLVMdev] Backend for the ZPU - a stack based / zero operand CPU
> On Jun 19, 2008, at 2:30 PM, ?yvind Harboe wrote: >> My llvm.org knowledge is ... shallow ... but I'm hoping that >> someone would find the time & pity to answer my questions: >> >> Q: Is a stack based / zero operand CPU and llvm a good match? (GCC >> wasn't) > > I'm not really sure, I'm not too familiar with these architectures. >
2011 Feb 25
3
Can the Sidekick PIM run in Wine?
I have been trying to get the Personal Information Manager Sidekick to run on Wine and Crossover. Our company is trying to move over to ubuntu(still fairly new) and after two weeks of searching i have yet to find a contact manager with the functionality and flexibility of sidekick so we are trying to get it working in Ubuntu. The program runs fine but then instantly crashes when i attempt to
2010 Nov 18
0
[LLVMdev] Writing a backend for the ZPU
Hi, I'm trying to have another stab at writing an LLVM ZPU backend. Any pointers or encouragement would be greatly appreciated. So far I've been wandering around the LLVM trying to read up and I've hacked together something that builds just to experiment and get a feel for the build system. I was able to write a backend for GCC which has been in use for years now, but I can't
2010 Nov 19
0
[LLVMdev] Fw: Writing a backend for the ZPU
Whoops! Forgot to CC: the list! ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From:Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To:Øyvind Harboe <oyvind.harboe at zylin.com> > Cc: > Sent:Thursday, November 18, 2010 7:22:39 PM > Subject:Re: [LLVMdev] Writing a backend for the ZPU > > > Hello, Some > thoughts/problems: - In GCC I created > registers which were
2008 Jun 23
0
[LLVMdev] Backend for the ZPU - a stack based / zero operand CPU
> We mean ZPU looks like x86 fp stack. We handle it by register > allocating it like a normal register based cpu than add a x87 > stackifer pass to convert it to stack operations. Thanks! > You do not have to. Take a look at PPC and ARM branch fix up passes. > llvm backends compute exact length of instructions so it can determine > when it is necessary to convert a conditional
2002 Nov 02
1
nmbd quitting
I just can't find the answer to solve this issue and I thought someone would know the answer. Finally got SWAT running and configuring a clean smb.conf file. If I try to start nmbd or smbd, they load for a few seconds and then quit. log.nmb (etc/var/log/samba/) has the following; [2002/11/02 13:51:07, 0] lib/util_sock.c:open_socket_in(829) Get_Hostbyname: Unknown host sidekick I'm
2006 Apr 28
2
Random 1-way audio on IAX2 Connections
I have 2 Asterisk servers connected via IAX2 connections. PBX1 is on the internet with a public IP Address - with PRI PBX 2 is behind a NAT router with IAX2 Ports forwarded 1-way audio is an issue with incoming and outgoing calls using the PRI. However whenever 1-way audio occurs, PBX2 can call PBX1 extensions and there are no issues. As well as a restart of asterisk on PBX2
2009 Feb 23
2
[LLVMdev] Creating an LLVM backend for a very small stack machine
On Sunday 22 February 2009 17:06:06 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Wesley J. Landaker <wjl at icecavern.net> wrote: > > * Has anyone else out there targeted (or tried to target) a stack > > machine before? Was it successfull? What problems did you have? > > Haven't done that, and I don't think there are any existing backends > like
2009 Feb 23
0
[LLVMdev] Creating an LLVM backend for a very small stack machine
On Feb 22, 2009, at 5:43 PM, Wesley J. Landaker wrote: > > I would love to see a Kalescope-like tutorial that goes step-by-step > through > making a backend. At the very least, I'll be documenting my > adventure, so > maybe once I know what I'm doing I can turn it into a tutorial. Have you seen: http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html If you're targeting
2009 Feb 23
1
[LLVMdev] Creating an LLVM backend for a very small stack machine
On Sunday 22 February 2009 23:18:25 Chris Lattner wrote: > Have you seen: > http://llvm.org/docs/WritingAnLLVMBackend.html I have, and it's certainly helpful. Since the Kalescope tutorial is so amazingly easy to work through that it makes me jealous for a similar tutorial on the backend. But I'm definitely not complaining. =) > If you're targeting a stack machine, I'd
2006 Jun 16
0
Getting error on a group select
Hi, I''m very new with Ruby and Rails. I have read Agile Web Development with Rails and was trying to create a grouped selection list by following his example on page 359. My helper looks like this: module LoginHelper AssocOption = Struct.new(:code_name, :display_name) class AssocType attr_reader :type_name, :options def initialize(name) @type_name = name
2005 Jul 27
2
[LLVMdev] Making a pass available to llc?
On 7/26/05, Reid Spencer <reid at x10sys.com> wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 17:25 -0700, Michael McCracken wrote: > > > Since I'm modifying llc, I have a couple small questions about that code: > > > > opt and analyze (and a couple of other places) add a verifier pass, > > but llc doesn't. > > This would seem to make sense for llc as well -
2005 Jun 07
3
BBEdit Ruby & Rails Syntax Module available
I''ve made a Ruby & Rails syntax coloring module for BBEdit. This is a "Codeless Language Module", so it will only work with BBEdit 8+. It''s basically a giant list of Ruby and Rails keywords, method names, and so on. It''s both Ruby and Rails because BBedit only lets you associate a file type with one language module. The file is available here:
2006 Jun 23
2
[LLVMdev] Help with error in pass
Dear LLVM guys, I am getting an error with my pass implementation, and I cannot figure it out. Basically, I've implemented part of a register allocation algorithm, but I am having problems to set the passes correctly. For instance, for this program below, the following error message is produced: .c ----------------------| .bc ---------------------------------
2005 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Making a pass available to llc?
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005, Michael McCracken wrote: >> I can't see any harm in that. However, please make sure that it really >> isn't being run. The verifier can be hidden by various levels of >> abstraction. > > Assuming that I get everything with -debug-pass=Structure, then it isn't: -debug-pass=Structure does list everything. If you add it, please add it in an
2005 Jul 27
0
[LLVMdev] Making a pass available to llc?
On Tue, 2005-07-26 at 17:25 -0700, Michael McCracken wrote: > Since I'm modifying llc, I have a couple small questions about that code: > > opt and analyze (and a couple of other places) add a verifier pass, > but llc doesn't. > This would seem to make sense for llc as well - should I add it, with > the corresponding > hidden -no-verify option? I can't see any
2005 Jul 27
1
[LLVMdev] Making a pass available to llc?
Attached is my patch that adds a (debug build only) verifier pass and support for creating passes specified on the command line to llc. Let me know if it needs changes to be acceptable. One thing I noticed is that (eg.) opt and analyze have their options and globals in an anonymous namespace while llc doesn't. I just used llc's convention - which is preferable? As to testing - It works
2016 Oct 04
8
[Bug 2621] New: ControlMaster started by scp (non-ssh?) doesn't forward agent
https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2621 Bug ID: 2621 Summary: ControlMaster started by scp (non-ssh?) doesn't forward agent Product: Portable OpenSSH Version: 7.3p1 Hardware: All OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: Miscellaneous