similar to: [LLVMdev] PIC documentation ?

Hello, Aaron > Is there any overview or detailed socumentation on LLVM PIC ? Did you mean Position Independent Code? If so - there is nothing special here, LLVM just implements (when this is implemented) what is defined in platform ABI. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Anton, Sorry I have not replied earlier. Can I ask what platform ABI's are documented other than Itanium ? I need to get to understand PIC on x86, x86_64 and PowerPC for the COFF and MachO backends. Thanks, Aaron 2009/6/15 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > Hello, Aaron > > > Is there any overview or detailed socumentation on LLVM PIC ? > Did you

Hello, Aaron > Can I ask what platform ABI's are documented other than Itanium ? I'd bet all platform ABI are more or less documented. > I need to get to understand PIC on x86, x86_64 and PowerPC for the COFF and MachO backends. ABI is normally induced by platform, not by architecture or object file format (however they can influence on it). 1. Windows is PIC by design. Google for

Anton, >> Can I ask what platform ABI's are documented other than Itanium ? > I'd bet all platform ABI are more or less documented. Right. Maybe we should collect references and do some LLVM PIC documentation and put it on LLVM website ? >> I need to get to understand PIC on x86, x86_64 and PowerPC for the COFF >> and MachO backends. > ABI is normally induced

On Jun 16, 2009, at 1:17 PMPDT, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Aaron > >> Can I ask what platform ABI's are documented other than Itanium ? > I'd bet all platform ABI are more or less documented. > >> I need to get to understand PIC on x86, x86_64 and PowerPC for the >> COFF and MachO backends. > ABI is normally induced by platform, not by

We're at the point in our port of OpenVMS to x86 using LLVM to make choices on mcmodel. Given OpenVMS's history, our linker will allocate static data (ie, .data, .bss, .plt, GOT, etc.) in the bottom 32-bits of address space (ie, 00000000.xxxxxxxx). However, we support code anywhere in the 64-bit address space as PIC code (we do this on Itanium today using our own code-generator and

Aaron, > Maybe we should collect references and do some LLVM PIC documentation and > put it on LLVM website ? What you mean as "LLVM PIC documentation"? What should be included there? > Okay. We need documentation, what is the difference between DynamicNoPIC and > full PIC ? >From TargetMachine.cpp (actually this is show in llc --help): cl::values(

>> 2. ABI docs for Darwin (x86, x86_64, ppc, ppc64) you might find >> somewhere @apple.com. There you can have all 3 types of PIC code: >> static (no pic at all), DynamicNoPIC and full PIC. > > Okay. We need documentation, what is the difference between > DynamicNoPIC and > full PIC ? The best way to figure this out is to run a small program through and look at

> > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2016 22:36:41 +0200 > From: Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] PIC and mcmodel=large on x86 doesn't use any > relocations > Message-ID: <20161029203641.GB20270 at britannica.bec.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >

I am interested in developing a backend for the PIC microcontrollers. Specifically, I plan to write for the 8-bit MCUs, but would hopefully also support the 16 and 32 bit models (eventually). It is my understanding that a backend for PIC16 was previously a part of the project but was dropped in version 2.9. Is there any development on this front currently? Is there any interest in developing this

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 17:08 +0100, Rafael Espindola wrote: > 2008/6/6 Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>: > > Hello, Rafael > > > > Awesome! But... -ENOPATCH :( > > Attached now. Hi Rafael, Thanks a lot for working on this! I have one question about the patch; why did you choose too add a new enum, PICCallStyle, instead of reusing (possibly with some

Has anyone experimented with generating non-PIC for MIPS64 and the n64 ABI? Currently MipsISelLowering.cpp uses conditions like: if ((getTargetMachine().getRelocationModel() == Reloc::PIC_) || IsN64) { } around any PIC code generation. Is generating non-PIC just untested, or is it known not to work? I can't find any discussion of it anywhere. I ran into this when trying to see why

Actually, GCC will generate non-PIC for n64. Maybe that is a recent addition, but we are using its results. Even if PIC may be faster and smaller code, it seems that non-PIC is still useful for bare-metal. That's the driver of my interest. I guess we can just test what happens when that part of the conditional is removed. As a side note, if it isn't supported then we should probably

I was having problems with my exception handling due to mixing PIC and non-PIC code into my executable. Now I'm confused as to how I'm supposed to do this correctly when I do have to mix different code types. The basic setup: - shared library which throws and catches exceptions, some exceptions leave it's library bounds - main executable which throws and catches exceptions, exceptions

I am trying to compile R-1.6.1 on an itanium. using either gcc 2.96 or gcc 3.0.4 nad either the supplied Redhat blas libs or the supplied code (ie wiht the --no-blas option) I get this error. Has anyone who has compiled R for the itanium advise me on the compilers versions and flags that they used? thanks bye rob gcc -shared -L/usr/local/lib -o lapack.so Lapack.lo

I'm trying to build a very large shared library (bundle) for PPC on Mac OS X 10.5. The build looks something like this, where mybundlebitcode.o is the large object llc -relocation-model=pic -o=mybundle.s mybundlebitcode.o gcc -arch ppc -c -x assembler -o mybundle.o mybundle.s g++ -o mybundle.bundle -bundle mybundle.o -lotherlibrary I get the following error: ld: 32-bit pic-base out of

On Mar 11, 2010, at 5:47 PM, Robb Kistler wrote: > I'm trying to build a very large shared library (bundle) for PPC on Mac OS X 10.5. The build looks something like this, where mybundlebitcode.o is the large object > > llc -relocation-model=pic -o=mybundle.s mybundlebitcode.o > gcc -arch ppc -c -x assembler -o mybundle.o mybundle.s > g++ -o mybundle.bundle -bundle mybundle.o

Hi Folks - I''m pretty new to ACPI (don''t know my ASL from a hole in the ground :-), but I think the _PRT method has the PIC/APIC cases reversed. I''m looking at tools/firmware/acpi/acpi_dsdt.asl. The ACPI spec says a _PIC method (if defined) will be called with an argument of 1 if the host is using APIC interrupts. If the host is using PIC interrupts instead, it

an obvious fix to PIC IO intercept. In PIC IO, address from send_pio_req is physical address already. Signed-off-by: Xiaohui Xin <xiaohui.xin@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Xiaowei Yang <xiaowei.yang@intel.com> Signed-off-by: Xin Li <xin.b.li@intel.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com

I'm trying to add static code generation capabilities to my MCJIT compiler on LLVM 3.4. To that extent I have: targetMachine = engineBuilder.selectTarget(); // ... targetMachine->addPassesToEmitFile(<...>); At first glance this appears to work, but when linking the object file I get the warning: ld: warning: PIE disabled. Absolute addressing (perhaps