similar to: [LLVMdev] XCore & PIC16 AsmPrinters

On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > Chris, > I will try to get it done before 2.6. (8/21). > Thanks Sanjiv! One other nice cleanup (but which is not time critical at all) would be to merge the contents of "PIC16Section" into the new "MCSectionPIC16" class. Unlike the previous design, you're now allowed to store arbitrary

Chris, I will try to get it done before 2.6. (8/21). - Sanjiv -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu on behalf of Chris Lattner Sent: Wed 8/12/2009 10:08 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: [LLVMdev] XCore & PIC16 AsmPrinters Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter implementation to be in a

Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, > > I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter > implementation to be in a subdirectory like the rest of the other > targets (e.g. make it live in lib/Target/PIC16/AsmPrinter). > Hi Chris, I'll try to get this done either this weekend or early next week. -- Richard Osborne | XMOS

> Chris Lattner wrote: > >> Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, >> >> I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter >> implementation to be in a subdirectory like the rest of the other >> targets (e.g. make it live in lib/Target/PIC16/AsmPrinter). >> I've moved the XCore AsmPrinter in r79094:

Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > >> Chris, >> I will try to get it done before 2.6. (8/21). >> > > Thanks Sanjiv! One other nice cleanup (but which is not time critical > at all) would be to merge the contents of "PIC16Section" into the new > "MCSectionPIC16" class. Unlike the

Hello all. At XMOS we are working towards updating the upstream XCore backend for newer versions of the chip. XCore is the XMOS processor. The XCore backend was written by Richard Osborne at XMOS. Richard has moved on. The current code owner in CODE_OWNERS.TXT, Robert Lytton, has also moved on. For some years XMOS has developed the compiler in-house, for new versions of the chip, but not

In -help output, -help - Display available options (--help-hidden for more) Both single and double - option markers are accepted, which is good. It would probably be better to refer to options consistently using the single marker in all cases. =linearscan - linear scan register allocator =pbqp - PBQP

On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: >> Evan > OK, that make sense, I'll take a look at changing this. I've added a > bug > for the issue: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3324 > > There is currently no Backend: XCore component in bugzilla so I've put > it under new-bugs. Could someone add this component for me. Added. You

Hi again, Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this time on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my register allocator, but it seems to be trigerred also by LLVM's linearscan register allocator. I don't know if the XCore target is stable enough in LLVM, or may be I

Hi Richard, Thanks for working on this! Your patched solved my initial problem, but introduced another one. Please find attached another BC file that fails on xcore with the linear scan regalloc. This is the error message I get eliminateFrameIndex Frame size too big: -3 0 llc 0x08affd1e 1 libc.so.6 0xb7d35a01 abort + 257 2 llc 0x081a0972

Hi Russell, I took care of these points except for > In -version output, > > Low Level Virtual Machine (http://llvm.org/): > llvm version 2.6svn > Optimized build. > Built Feb 14 2010(11:05:20). > > Registered Targets: > alpha - Alpha [experimental] > arm - ARM > bfin - Analog Devices Blackfin [experimental] > c - C

On Jan 13, 2009, at 11:20 AM, Richard Osborne <richard at xmos.com> wrote: > Roman Levenstein wrote: >> Hi again, >> >> Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered >> by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this >> time >> on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my >>

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:14 AM, Richard Osborne wrote: > > >>> Evan >>> >> OK, that make sense, I'll take a look at changing this. I've added a >> bug >> for the issue: >> >> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3324 >> >> There is currently no Backend: XCore component in bugzilla so

Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi again, > > Now, after I fixed the graph coloring regalloc bug that was triggered > by the ARM target, I continue testing and found another bug, this time > on the XCore target. First I thought that it is again specific to my > register allocator, but it seems to be trigerred also by LLVM's > linearscan register allocator. > > I don't

In my ongoing work on refactoring the asmprinters, I've found that PIC16 doesn't put ':' after labels in some cases. Specifically, it looks like basic block labels are emitted without a ':': movwf @__floatunsidf.frame. + 2 movlp .BB1_2 goto .BB1_2 .BB1_2 ; %bb7 movlw 0 banksel @__floatunsidf.frame. but that

Chris Lattner wrote: > In my ongoing work on refactoring the asmprinters, I've found that > PIC16 doesn't put ':' after labels in some cases. Specifically, it > looks like basic block labels are emitted without a ':': > > movwf @__floatunsidf.frame. + 2 > movlp .BB1_2 > goto .BB1_2 > .BB1_2

Roman Levenstein wrote: > Hi Richard, > > Thanks for working on this! Your patched solved my initial problem, > but introduced another one. Please find attached another BC file that > fails on xcore with the linear scan regalloc. > > This is the error message I get > eliminateFrameIndex Frame size too big: -3 > 0 llc 0x08affd1e > 1 libc.so.6 0xb7d35a01 abort

On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Matthew Hilt wrote: > I've been looking closely at LLVM as a means to developing a new toolchain for an MCU core of very similar architecture. To that end, the once included PIC16 backend might be a valuable reference. I found a message in April of this year that indicated it had been dropped from new releases however, and that were it to be resumed "it

I'd like to be Code owner for the XCore backend if no one objects Thanks, Richard -- Richard Osborne | XMOS http://www.xmos.com

On Sep 21, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Matthew Hilt wrote: > >> I've been looking closely at LLVM as a means to developing a new toolchain for an MCU core of very similar architecture. To that end, the once included PIC16 backend might be a valuable reference. I found a message in April of this year that indicated it had been dropped from