similar to: [LLVMdev] Inserting Instructions (pass)

On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Hi, > I’ am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which > FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? > If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the > new produced InlineAsm? > > Thanks for help Inline asm works like a "callee". So for: call void asm sideeffect

Thank you Chris, for your hint, but I am still too stupid. I tried two versions asm_arguments.push_back(Type::VoidTy); FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, asm_arguments, false); Alternatively FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, std::vector<const Type*>(), false); . Can you give me a snippet of example code, or somebody else?

Hi, both versions are working: FunctionType *asm_Ftype = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, std::vector<const Type*>(), false); InlineAsm* Iasm = InlineAsm::get(asm_Ftype,"isync","~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}",true); How can I insert this InlineAsm, because it is no instruction and this way it will not work: Instruction *pi = bi;

On Jul 31, 2009, at 5:04 PM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Thank you Chris, > for your hint, but I am still too stupid. I tried two versions > > asm_arguments.push_back(Type::VoidTy); > FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, > asm_arguments, false); > > Alternatively > > FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, >

Hi everyone. On i386--win32 targets, LLVM tries to use the MSVCRT routine _ftol2 for floating-point to unsigned conversions, but this function has a nonstandard calling convention LLVM doesn't understand. It takes its input operand on the x87 stack as ST0, which it pops off of the stack before returning. The return value is given in EDX:EAX. In effect, I need to call it like this: %1 = call

Hi I am trying to modify the llc in that way: subf 3, 5, 3 subf 3, 5, 3 stw 3, 44(1) stw 3, 44(1) # InlineAsm Start --> isync

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Michael Graumann<MichaelGraumann at gmx.net> wrote: > Hi > > I am trying to modify the llc in that way: > > > >         subf 3, 5, 3                                 subf 3, 5, 3 > >         stw 3, 44(1)                                stw 3, 44(1) > >                                                                # InlineAsm

Hi all, I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is through asm *statements*. I never have inline asm *expressions*, and outputs are always via memory. I D my test looks like

Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect

On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically > how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. > So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline > asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is

The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). Works on x86. %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", "={ax},0,{di},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64 231, i64 %41) nounwind ; <i64> [#uses=2] -Rich

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >>> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >>>

Hi all, I'm trying to land (a rebased version of) http://llvm.org/D37461 - which should make it possible to handle x86 Intel assembly like mov eax, offset Foo::ptr + 1 (Currently, omitting the +1 works... but offset doesn't work in compound expressions.) I'm having trouble figuring out what inline assembly I can emit into the LLVM IR that will work properly. So far, the closest

Hi all, I'm getting rather odd behavior from a call asm inteldialect(). TL;DR is "mov reg, $0" with a "i" constraint on $0 is behaving identical to "mov reg, dword ptr [$0]" and differently from "movl $0, reg" in AT&T syntax. I'm not sure how to get clang to emit an inteldialect, so for this example, I'm emitting llvm and then modifying

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. > My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference > (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). > Works on x86. > > %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", >

Hello, Most of the IR language is correctly explained; but with inline assembly I feel alone at some point: define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) #0 { ... //some uninteresting bloat here call void asm sideeffect "outw %eax, $0", "imr,~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i32 %8) #2, !srcloc !2 ret i32 0 } I reduced the above code to the offending line containing:

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 18:41, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > > What version of llvm are you using? This looks like it may be fixed on trunk. After poking at my installation of rust, I'm not entirely sure what version of LLVM it uses. Looking at the GitHub page, it looks like Rust maintains their own copy of llvm and cherry picks commits. The C example was

On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > Hi everyone. On i386--win32 targets, LLVM tries to use the MSVCRT > routine _ftol2 for floating-point to unsigned conversions, but this > function has a nonstandard calling convention LLVM doesn't understand. > It takes its input operand on the x87 stack as ST0, which it pops off > of the stack before returning. The return value

Thanks, but I could not find the imr, dirflag, fpsr constraints here. Just the usual gcc/clang inline assembly constraints. Those one were of my concern, actually :) --  Alex 18.11.2015, 17:11, "David Siegel" <agnat at icloud.com>: >>  On 18.11.2015, at 16:28, AlexandreFressange via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>  I reduced the above

Hi, I would like to prevent that two adjacent calls to external functions getting interleaved/separated by other neighboring code. This mixing seems to happen in the code generator. I can prevent it by putting the two calls into a separate BB, but then I can't use -simplifycfg, -jump-threading, ... as is. Here is an example: %160 = add i64 %158, %159 ; <i64>