similar to: [LLVMdev] X86 JIT

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 Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > 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

ExecutionEngine::create() can return NULL with an empty error message (admittedly, it did so because of global variable initialization problems). The code currently lets NULL go through if ErrorMsg is empty, and segfaults later. When EE is NULL but ErrorMsg is empty, simply do not try to print it and exit. Index: tools/lli/lli.cpp

--- 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, 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

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, 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 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

Dear R People: If I put in: > findPerl Error: object 'findPerl' not found But if I use: > gdata:::findPerl function (perl, verbose = "FALSE") { errorMsg <- "perl executable not found. Use perl= argument to specify the correct path." if (missing(perl)) { perl = "perl" } perl = Sys.which(perl) if (perl == "" ||

Hi, 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? The reason that I am asking is for cryptographical algorithms which are becoming ever more important rotation is a major operation. Thus including such instruction could reduce 3 instructions {shl, shr, or} into {rol | ror} which could gain

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

> Use an Intel pro/100 or pro/1000 driver..they are known to > work with VLANs. > > I guess it's also possible that it's a problem in the > bridging code, so try the latest kernel > as well... I compiled the latest 2.6.19 kernel and tested it with two 3COM 3c905c fast ethernet interfaces which work fine with vlan 802.1q tagging, but when I have added the eth0 and eth1

Hi All, I was looking into using LLVM with C++. Currently there is almost no C++ support (C support only). Just wondering who is the person to contact so I could help out with C++ extension for LLVM. With Best Regards KaZ Department of Mathematics and Computing Imperial College London

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

I finally succeded in compiling TableGen with Visual Studio. In the end I made normal solution and project files for VS instead of using Paolo's SConstruct based build system because of my lacking familiarity with SConstruct. One of the main obstacles was getting the FileLexer and FileParser to build correctly. First of all the output file for FileLexer is specified with a %option, which

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 >

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

We have a bitwidth analysis that can be downloaded. It is not in LLVM. There should be a link in the paper: http://www.cs.utah.edu/~regehr/papers/pldi075-cooprider.pdf John Regehr

Hi Reid, > > if ((err = dlerror())) { > > error("earlier undetected dlerror: %s\n", err); > > } > > p = dlsym(handle, sym); > > if ((err = dlerror())) { > > error("dlsym failed: %s\n", err); > > } > > No, you're not missing anything. The correct way to check for errors > is with