similar to: [LLVMdev] [JIT] JIT trace tree works

On Mar 29, 2009, at 5:31 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Kasra wrote: > >> >> Hi guys, >> >> I was looking arround Firefox 3.1 js JIT (TraceMonkey), it made me >> wonder if there is anyone working on a trace-tree technique for >> optimising the runtime over head of LLVM JIT?? >> > >LLVM directly supports this sort of

No. I am not aware of any/ Evan On Mar 29, 2009, at 9:48 AM, Kasra wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I was looking arround Firefox 3.1 js JIT (TraceMonkey), it made me > wonder if there is anyone working on a trace-tree technique for > optimising the runtime over head of LLVM JIT?? > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > With Best Regards >

Hi guys, I was looking arround Firefox 3.1 js JIT (TraceMonkey), it made me wonder if there is anyone working on a trace-tree technique for optimising the runtime over head of LLVM JIT?? ---------------------------------------------------------------- With Best Regards Mr. Kasra Nassiri Department of Mathematics & Computer Science Imperial College London

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 2:52 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen

--- On Fri, 1/30/09, Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [LLVM][g++] A helping hand > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc..edu> > Date: Friday, January 30, 2009, 8:29 AM > On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > > Hi All, >

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > From: Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:20 PM > On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > > I guess the

--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > From: Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] rol/ror llvm instruction set > To: kasra_n500 at yahoo.com, "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 4:17 PM > On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra > <kasra_n500

Hello, When I was poking arround my llvm code, I realised that given a Type there isn't a seperate container for the type operator functions. Am I correct? If so, wouldn't it make more sence to provide a container to put the objects operator function in to reduce the overhead of going through each non operator function to find the operator function defined for it?? The reason for this

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Kasra <kasra_n500 at yahoo.com> wrote: > > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions within llvm. > I guess I could ask you the opposite question: What is the benefit of having these? They would have to be mappable to the source language in some way. I'm

On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 2:45 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > >> On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >>> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >>> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >>> instructions to LLVM? >>

On Feb 3, 2009, at 3:54 PM, Kasra wrote: > I guess the backends could know about the instructions. But I am not > convinced why it is beneficial not to have ROR and ROL instructions > within llvm. > How would it be beneficial to have them, if we already generate them at the target level properly? Adding instructions "just because" doesn't seem wise. -Owen

On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:35 PMPST, Mike Stump wrote: > On Feb 3, 2009, at 2:28 PM, Kasra wrote: >> I was looking around the LLVM instruction set and I failed to find >> ROL and ROR instructions. Is there any plans on adding these >> instructions to LLVM? > > Not sure what you mean: He's referring to the LLVM IR, I think, and it's true that doesn't have

On 2009-01-30 18:19, Kasra wrote: > Hi All, > > I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently there is almost no C++ support (C support only). > LLVM is written in C++, has a C++ API, and llvm-gcc frontend can compile C++ programs. What exactly is the C++ support you are missing? Best regards, --Edwin

Hi, I have been away from the list for a while, so do apologize in advance if the topic is slightly off topic here. I have started a hobby project to create a virtual OS library (jos). The idea was to create a set of C API's for operating system specific tasks i.e. File IO, threading and etc. For example: typedef jos_handle jos_thread; jos_thread jos_thread_create(...); void

Hi, for some reason I could not get the machine code generator for x86 working. The interpreter is the only thing that works, is there anything that I am missing here? -- Kasra -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090622/89dca208/attachment.html>

> On Sep 14, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Kyle Butt via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I plan on rewriting the block placement algorithm to proceed by traces. > > A trace is a chain of blocks where each block in the chain may fall through to > the successor in the chain. > > The overall algorithm would be to first produce traces for a function, and then >

On Jun 22, 2009, at 2:19 PM, Kasra wrote: > Hi, > > for some reason I could not get the machine code generator for x86 > working. The interpreter is the only thing that works, is there > anything that I am missing here? This recently changed. In your main program, please #include "llvm/ Target/TargetSelect.h" and call InitializeNativeTarget(); before setting up

> On Sep 18, 2017, at 5:17 PM, Kyle Butt <iteratee at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 1:16 PM, Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com <mailto:atrick at apple.com>> wrote: > >> On Sep 14, 2017, at 6:53 PM, Kyle Butt via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> I plan on

Hi, Was this ever resolved? I'm curious, I'm also in a situation where there may be many (very many) JITted functions over the history of an application (which may be running for many days) Thanks On Mar 20, 2009, at 7:34 AM, George Giorgidze wrote: > Hi, > > In my application I am JITing thousands of functions, though I am > doing it sequantially and running only

On 2009-11-01 08:40, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: > 2009/10/30 Török Edwin <edwintorok at gmail.com>: > >> On 2009-10-29 23:55, Jeffrey Yasskin wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Nicolas Geoffray >>> <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Jeffrey, >>>> >>>>