similar to: [LLVMdev] inline asm question

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

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). >>>

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", >

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

> 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

Hi all, I'm working for translating dex bytecode to LLVM IR In order to communicate with Android interpreter, The work have to add data below some instructions I want to use inline assembly to add data. Thus, I wrote a little program to find out the related LLVM IR int main() { asm(".long 0x12345678"); return 0; } and I use clang to translate it into bitcode It's the

Are there any examples for the inline assembler or more complete docs? Questions: * What are the syntax and semantics of constraints? * If I load up specific registers in the inline assembly, will llvm make sure that those registers are unassigned or should I save the registers and restore them? i.e. does llvm try and understand what is going on in the inline assembly, or is it a black box to

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

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

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

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, Michael for (BasicBlock::iterator bi = i->begin(), be = i->end(); bi != be; ++bi){ std::vector<const Type*> asm_arguments;

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>

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:

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

Hello, In the following code snippet: %tmp49 = call i64 asm "movq %gs:${1:P},$0", "=r,im,,~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64* @kernel_stack) #6, !dbg !6625, !srcloc !5841 I would expect for the inline asm call to receive two arguments because of the ${1:P} corresponding to a %P1 that will append the $1 to %%gs:. Can someone explain why there is only one argument in this call? Moreover,

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, When compiling the open-source software cryptopp (https://www.cryptopp.com/#download <https://www.cryptopp.com/#download>) version 5.6.4 I found a strange issue with the IR generated. The issue only appears when compiling with -O2 optimisation in the integer.cpp file (the function is _ZN8CryptoPPrsERNSt3__113basic_istreamIcNS0_11char_traitsIcEEEERNS_7IntegerE ->

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?

On Wed, 2018-02-07 at 15:47 -0800, Craig Topper wrote: > I'll save you a review iteration. This is updated to match llvm > coding style. Capital camel case variable names and uses > LLVM_FALLTHROUGH instead of the comment. Thanks. How's this for a test? ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=i686-- -no-integrated-as | FileCheck -check-prefix=X86 %s ; RUN: llc < %s -mtriple=x86_64--

Using Clang/LLVM 3.6.0 we are observing a case where the optimizations are clobbering EFLAGS on x86_64. This is inconvenient when the status of bit 9 (IF), which controls interrupts, changes. Here's a simple test program. Assume that the external function foo() modifies the IF bit in EFLAGS. --- #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdbool.h> void foo(void); int a; int bar(void)