similar to: [LLVMdev] m68k backend

On Sun, 27 Sep 2020 at 20:27, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > As many of these classic systems still have very active communities, > especially the Amiga community, > development efforts are still very strong. For example, despite being the > oldest port of the Linux > kernel, the m68k port has still multiple active kernel

Hi All, We would like to contribute our supports for Motorola 68000 series CPU (also known as M68k or M680x0) into LLVM. And we want to hear feedbacks from you Here is some background for M68k: Motorola 68000 series CPU was one of the most popular CPUs used by personal computers in the ‘80, including some of the earliest Apple Macintosh. Fast-forwarding to modern days, M68k is still popular

I have a few weeks of downtime between jobs coming up and I was considering trying to put together a m68k backend for LLVM. I have some experience with compiler front ends; I've maintained a couple of DSL implementations in the past, but I have relativly little knowledge of code generation. I know that there have been a few attempts in the past, but I cannot find any evidence that they made

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 12:45 PM, Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> >> To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> >> Cc: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Sent:

----- Original Message ---- > From: Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Thu, November 19, 2009 12:22:55 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] fastcc and ExecutionEngine::getPointerToFunction() > > >

Hello Anton, Our main.bc was generated with the following command line: llvm-g++ -Illvm\include -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -c -emit-llvm -omain.bc main.cpp The amos.bc file was generated by our experimental llvm-peg parser generator whose internal workings are assembled internally using LLVM Assembly. The parser generator links a C++ library bitcode with C bindings called

I know it's really early in the project's life, but another question I had: How does the generated 68K code perform, at least compared to modern GCC? -- Chris

Hello again, My partner and I am modifying a PEG parser generator to produce LLVM bitcode from a version of a parsing expression grammar that takes LLVM Assembly as code. It accepts external libraries in its current state so we are writing an external library in C++ using C bindings for the linkage. Trying to get it to link is proving to be more challenging than expected. My partner is trying

Hello OvermindDL1, We are implementing an extensible language. That's one where you can add commands and constructs to the language without having to recompile the parser. We want compilation of the parser in order to "freeze" it but only as an option. One goal is to eventually get the macro functions of our language to the point where they are equivalent to the template

Hi Kenneth, If the LLVM project is switching to CMake, then CTest might be the framework of choice to use rather than scripting up something in Bash. --Sam --- On Wed, 7/30/08, Kenneth Boyd <zaimoni at zaimoni.com> wrote: > From: Kenneth Boyd <zaimoni at zaimoni.com> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Is there room for another build system? > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 19:13, Min-Yih Hsu <minyihh at uci.edu> wrote: > Thanks for all your feedback, those were extremely helpful, especially the > guidelines to split the patches. I think in my case, patch 3 ~ 6 are the > most problematic, I will rework them shortly. > Perfect, thanks! And most importantly, I'll present a roadmap regarding blockers we need to > clear

Hello! Almost two years ago, Artyom Goncharov submitted an initial effort for a backend for the Motorola 68000 architecture [1] which was eventually not merged, unfortunately. I elaborated why I supported the idea of such a backend [2]. Recently, we started a fundraising campaign on the platform Bountysource.com to port the M68K backend in GCC to the new MODE_CC register representation which was

----- Original Message ---- > From: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 3:49:01 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] accessing a bitcode library exported from C++ using the JIT > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:17 PM, Samuel

Sorry, forgot to CC the list. ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Hello, > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Joachim Durchholz

> I agree with you OvermindDL1, > > SInce the language I'm going to be working on doesn't support varargs, it would be nice to be able to ditch the C calling convention for fastcc in all occurrances for an added speed boost.  I also will need to add my own library calling convention on one platform I plan on supporting which will be register-loaded as well. Are you going to be

Hi, I've developed editor prototype for TableGen files (td). It is Eclipse plugin based on IMP project (The IDE Meta-Tooling Platform). Editor has outline, folding, coloring, go to definition, etc. As any prototype, editor has some limitations (e.g. no cross-file indexing). If there is any interest to such tool I will improve it a bit and then publish. Also considering llvm asm (ll) editing

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

Hi Anton, Thanks for the tip. I’ve moved some common code from the patch: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50784> https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50856> https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D50858> but the backend itself is still quite large. Anything more I can do to simplify reviewing? > On 15 Aug

On Mon, 28 Sep 2020 at 10:37, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz < glaubitz at physik.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > So, I think in case there was a problem with the backend in LLVM, the > community > would have enough momentum to work towards solving this issue. > Great! I agree. But we will enable the target in Debian the moment it becomes > usable > and we will expose it to as much

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Samuel Crow<samuraileumas at yahoo.com> wrote: > We're using the LLVM Value * class functions to box and unbox values and functions for our stack.  The stack needs to be able to take indexing without changing the stack pointer so we're using a std::vector for that.  The std::string section would be a lot easier to replace than the two I just