similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code

Hi, If this looks ok, could somebody check it in ? thanks Zoltan Evan Cheng-2 wrote: > > Looks good. Thanks. > > Evan > > On May 1, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> The attached patch contains the following changes: >> >> * X86InstrInfo.cpp: Synchronize a few places with the code

Hi Zoltan, The part that determines whether SIB byte is needed caused a lot of regressions last night (see Geryon-X86-64 etc.). I've reverted it for now. Please take a look. Thanks, Evan On May 4, 2009, at 3:49 PM, Evan Cheng wrote: > Committed as revision 70929. Thanks. > > Evan > > On May 3, 2009, at 8:29 PM, vargaz wrote: > >> >> Hi, >> >>

Committed as revision 70929. Thanks. Evan On May 3, 2009, at 8:29 PM, vargaz wrote: > > Hi, > > If this looks ok, could somebody check it in ? > > thanks > > Zoltan > > > Evan Cheng-2 wrote: >> >> Looks good. Thanks. >> >> Evan >> >> On May 1, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: >>

Hi, It looks like the problem was with the RIP relative addressing. The original patch mistakenly removed the || DispForReloc part because I tough that the RIP relative addressing was done by the SIB encodings, but it is actually done by the shorter ones. The attached patch seems to work for me on linux and when simulating darwin by forcing some variables in X86TargetMachine.cpp to their darwin

Hi, I can't reproduce these failures on my linux machine. The test machine seems to be running darwin. I suspect that the problem might be with RIP relative addressing, or with the encoding of R12/R13, but the code seems to handle the latter, since it checks for ESP/EBP which is the same as R12/R13. Zoltan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at

Looks good. Thanks. Evan On May 1, 2009, at 8:40 AM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > The attached patch contains the following changes: > > * X86InstrInfo.cpp: Synchronize a few places with the code in > X86CodeEmitter.cpp > * X86CodeEmitter.cpp: Avoid the longer SIB encoding on amd64 if it > is not neeed. > > Zoltan >

Hi, The attached small path fixes X86InstrInfo::getMemModRMByteSize to be consistent with the emit code in X86CodeEmitter::emitMemModRMByte on amd64. Zoltan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/ad831982/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Hi, Here is an updated version of the patch using address space 257. Zoltan On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Shantonu Sen <ssen at apple.com> wrote: > Maybe 257 would be better (or other unused), because of r70197, which gives > special behavior for <256 > > Shantonu Sen > ssen at apple.com > > Sent from my Mac Pro > > > On May 4, 2009,

Hi, Attached is the final version of the patch, adding the requested FIXME. If this is ok, can somebody check it in ? thanks Zoltan On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 6:11 AM, Zoltan Varga <vargaz at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >>

Hi, I don't intentionally want to induce a tramp, the load null is created by an llvm optimization pass from code like: v = null; ..... v.Call (); Zoltan On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:39 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Zoltan, > > We've come across this before where people meant to induce a trap by > dereferencing a null. It

Hi, The first patch fixes the implementation of umul.with.overflow on x86 which was throwing a 'Cannot yet select' error. The second patch fixes the definition of LLVMTypeKind in the C binding by syncing it with the c++ counterpart. Please review and commit if it looks ok. thanks Zoltan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi, If I'm writing a JIT, and want to access the TLS variables of the app containing the JIT, I can't use thread_local since that only works for variables declared in LLVM IL and/or managed by the ExecutionEngine. While this patch allows a JIT to generate the TLS accesses itself, if it knows the tls offset of the variable in question. Zoltan On Tue, May 5, 2009 at

Hi, Currently, llvm treats the loads from a null address as unreachable code, i.e.: load i32* null is transformed by some optimization pass into unreachable This presents problems in JIT compilers like mono which implement null pointer checks by trapping SIGSEGV signals. It also looks incorrect since it changes program behavior, which might be undefined in general, but it is quite

OK, here's a new patch that adds the infrastructure and the implementation for X86, ARM and PPC of GetInstSize and GetFunctionSize. Both functions are virtual functions defined in TargetInstrInfo.h. For X86, I moved some commodity functions from X86CodeEmitter to X86InstrInfo. What do you think? Nicolas Evan Cheng wrote: > > I think both of these belong to TargetInstrInfo. And

Hi, Would it be possible to merge this commit: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=rev&revision=80960 to the llvm 2.6 branch ? Without it, incomplete unwind info is generated for functions with 0 stack size. thanks Zoltan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, The add.with.overflow instrinsics don't seem to work with constant arguments, i.e. changing the call in add-with-overflow.ll to: %t = call {i32, i1} @llvm.sadd.with.overflow.i32(i32 0, i32 0) causes the following exception when running the codegen tests: llc: DAGCombiner.cpp:646: void<unnamed>::DAGCombiner::Run(llvm::CombineLevel): Assertion `N->getValueType(0) ==

Hi, The arguments to the 'and' instruction must be integer types or vectors of integer types. If I have a compiler whose source language has support for andps by having its own intrinsics, then I would have to generate code to convert the float vector into an int vector before passing it to llvm's and instruction, then convert the result back.

Hello, The preferred way to do TLS is to use the thread_local keyword. There is x86-64 support for thread_local on ELF; if you need it for other targets, I recommend looking at adapting it. Dan On May 4, 2009, at 2:59 PM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > Here is an updated version of the patch using address space 257. > > Zoltan > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at

Hi, Here is the next iteration of the patch. The only comment not addressed is this one: > It would be better to implement a target-independent check for > overflow for the "Legal" case (like how SADDO does). Hacker's > Delight > has some hints on how to do this. It's not easy for the signed case, > but is do-able. It can be lowered to a division + a branch,

Applied. Thanks, Zoltan! -bw On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 1:12 PM, Zoltan Varga <vargaz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Attached is the final version of the patch, adding the requested > FIXME. If this is ok, can > somebody check it in ? > > thanks > > Zoltan > > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 9:58 PM,