similar to: [LLVMdev] making trampolines more portable

Eli Friedman wrote: > Also, for lack of an intrinsic, there's a relatively easy workaround: > you can declare a global containing the correct size, then link in a > small target-specific .bc with the definition right before code > generation. So why can't LLVM provide that global? I don't care whether it's a global, intrinsic, or whatever. If I have to provide

I'm not sure whether there are any other cases where using LLVM requires knowledge of the target architecture, but needing it for trampolines is worrying me. I'm putting together things where the program that's generating the LLVM intermediate code doesn't have any way to know what the target architecture will be. Right now I'm using alloca to get a block that is expected

Duncan Sands wrote: > is it important for you to have portable bitcode (i.e. the trampoline > size as some kind of symbolic constant, maybe via a global or an > intrinsic) that works on all targets or would it be enough to have the > LLVM info for the target expose the trampoline size, so when generating > IR for a target X you would query the method for target X and if it

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM >> To: Villmow, Micah >> Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu >> Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:50 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Richard > Smith > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM > *To:* Villmow, Micah > *Cc:* Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > *Subject:* Re:

From: metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard Smith Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM To: Villmow, Micah Cc: Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com<mailto:Micah.Villmow at amd.com>> wrote:

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:40 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> wrote: > > > > > From: metafoo at gmail.com [mailto:metafoo at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Richard > Smith > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:30 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Eli Friedman; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR

> -----Original Message----- > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:22 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev] SPIR Portability Discussion > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> >

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2012 3:22 PM > > To: Villmow, Micah > > Cc: Richard Smith; cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [LLVMdev]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel >>> <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:

Yes, it's very likely. It'd be very convenient if we could send a patch to buildbots for testing without actually submitting. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:38 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > Hi LLVMdev, > > > > My recent commit r186623 caused buildbots for

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel >> <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >>> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel > <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:09 AM, Torvald Riegel >>> > I thought that the layout of structs was supposed to be preserved (wrong

On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 11:55 PM, Travis Cross <tc at travislists.com> wrote: > On 2013-07-30 22:11, Eli Bendersky wrote: > > we've published an initial version of the PNaCl bitcode reference > > manual online - > > http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl/bitcode-abi. The PNaCl > > bitcode is a restricted subset of LLVM IR. > > > > Any comments

Yes, I applied the patch on trunk version like below. It says patching file. However, when I make, the build is still failing. janarbek at ubuntu:~/Work/llvm/llvm$ patch -p0 < unistd.txt patching file lib/Support/Unix/Path.inc   =========================================== Phone : 82-42-860-1838 Fax : 82-42-860-6790 Cell Phone: 82-10-7599-1981

So in this example: %idx = getelementptr { float*, i32 }* %MyStruct, i64 0, i32 1 Why is it picking i64 for the index but i32 for the offset? On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> > Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM > Subject: Re:

Well, we like the operator because it maps cleanly to Fortran's ISHFTC intrinsic. There must also be other compilers out there, maybe catering to cryptos, that have their own intrinsic for circular shift in other languages. It seems wasteful for an optimizer to break apart an intrinsic into its elemental pieces in order for LLVM to put them back together. This was done in our compiler for some

On Oct 14, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > Maybe... although note that with gcc vector intrinsics, this violates > strict aliasing. gcc does allow you to use a slightly more elaborate > workaround with a union, though. Hum what's your take on this then: /* The Intel API is flexible enough that we must allow aliasing with other vector types, and their scalar

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> Date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:58 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GetElementPtr To: Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> Sorry, So what I'm trying to ask is are the widths given (32, 64) for the index and the offset the widths of the index and offset values or the width of the type they are