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

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code"

2009 May 04
3
[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
2009 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT 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, >> >>
2009 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
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: >>
2009 May 05
1
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
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
2009 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
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
2009 May 01
0
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fixes for the amd64 JIT code
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 >
2009 Apr 08
1
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fix instruction size computation on amd64
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
2009 May 04
4
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add support for accessing the FS segment register on X86
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,
2008 Dec 09
3
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Add sub.ovf/mul.ovf intrinsics
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, >>
2009 Sep 05
4
[LLVMdev] loads from a null address and optimizations
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
2009 Jun 01
3
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Fix support for .umul.with.overflow on x86 + fix c binding
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
2009 May 04
1
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add support for accessing the FS segment register on X86
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
2009 Sep 05
3
[LLVMdev] loads from a null address and optimizations
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
2008 Apr 15
4
[LLVMdev] Being able to know the jitted code-size before emitting
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
2009 Sep 14
3
[LLVMdev] merge request for 2.6
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:
2008 Dec 09
1
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Add sub.ovf/mul.ovf intrinsics
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) ==
2009 Dec 08
2
[LLVMdev] LLVM intrinsic for SSE ANDPS instruction
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.
2009 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] Add support for accessing the FS segment register on X86
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
2008 Dec 09
4
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Add sub.ovf/mul.ovf intrinsics
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,
2008 Dec 09
0
[LLVMdev] [PATH] Add sub.ovf/mul.ovf intrinsics
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,