similar to: [LLVMdev] ARMSchedule.td MipsSchedule.td etc.

Yes. But it is not really being used by most (any?) targets because post-RA scheduling is disabled by default. Also, the existing model is very limited in what types of micro-architectures can be described. I've been extending it to enable scheduling of multi-issue targets, targets with overlapping FU usage, and targets that use and define registers in multiple pipeline stages. See

Actually after some digging I managed to answer these questions for myself. I am guessing that this information is used by the Schedule* classes in CodeGen. --- On Mon, 8/17/09, Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > From: Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com> > Subject: [LLVMdev] ARMSchedule.td MipsSchedule.td etc. > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Date:

I am curious- what is the current status of the MIPS support in LLVM? I have a mipsel device and was wondering if I could compile code for it with clang. Would I have to implement a backend setup myself? Is there also an option to compile w/ clang on an x86 for Mipsel? Thanks in advance.

I am trying to create a boxed tagged datatype for a language where it is necessary to resolve the type at runtime. If I were writing an interpreter in C- it would most likely look something like this- struct { unsigned tag; union { long Int; double Float; .... } } Is there a standard way for constructing a type like this in LLVM? Thanks again.

This is probably another very basic question- but is there a simple method for cross compiling LLVM for another platform? Thanks in advance.

Thanks both. I looked over the getelementptr and bitcast documentation but I am still a bit confused by one point. lets say i have something like this. union { long Int; double float; long* IntRef; } Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way?

I just looked over your diff and it would seem to me that additional changes would be needed to be done to some of the LLVM-IR -> DAG stuff to make things fully functional (this could be a bit of supposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > From: Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at

Hi, I was looking over the experimental MIPS backend and noticed that it has a delay slot pass which just inserts nops into the delay slots. I assume it should be possible to do a bit better than this. Is there an existing pass which "fills" delay slots or would I have to write one if I wanted slightly more optimal code? (anyone have any references?) Thanks in advance.

I have been toying around with the LLVM tutorial code and I am trying to deduce what I can from it as a basis for a compiler frontend for a simple language of my own devising (once I understand what I am doing I will probably attempt mapping a more complex language target). I am having some difficulties however understanding how certain things work and I was hoping perhaps someone could help me

Hello, This is probably a bit of a beginner's question but I am new to LLVM I have been examining the possibility of constructing something similar to the JnJVM for a language which supports dynamic class loading. The problem I am having is determining how the JIT system allows for dynamic loading of functions into the JIT. The paper indicates the JnJVM use some sort of callback when the JIT

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > I just looked over your diff and it would seem to me that additional changes would be needed to be done to some of the LLVM-IR -> DAG stuff to make things fully functional (this could be a bit of supposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). Code generation actually was

Hi Carter, Carter Cheng wrote: > Hello, > > This is probably a bit of a beginner's question but I am new to LLVM > I have been examining the possibility of constructing something similar to the JnJVM for a language which supports dynamic class loading. The problem I am having is determining how the JIT system allows for dynamic loading of functions into the JIT. The paper

On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? Not really; there's some discussion of that in the thread starting at

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 12:16 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > >> Since pointer sizes are platform dependent if I am trying to use the union in question with an extern C function is it possible to make write the single definition in a platform independent way? >> > > Not really; there's some discussion of that in

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 4:15 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > This is probably another very basic question- but is there a simple method for cross compiling LLVM for another platform? If you already have a cross-compiling environment set up, it shouldn't be too hard; for LLVM and llvm-gcc, you should be able to pass in --host=mytarget to configure, and if

On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 8:56 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > Is there also an option to compile w/ clang on an x86 for Mipsel? A normal build of clang includes limited cross-compile support by passing in the "-ccc-host-triple" option, although it's still a bit of a work-in-progress. Nobody has added support for any Mips targets, but it's really

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > I was looking over the experimental MIPS backend and noticed that it has a delay slot pass which just inserts nops into the delay slots. I assume it should be possible to do a bit better than this. Is there an existing pass which "fills" delay slots or would I have to write one if I wanted slightly

Hi, I really dont know I came rather late to the discussion and some kind folks on this list gave me a few links. I didnt see much mention of any controversy. Are there issues still that need to be resolved? So far I am still quite the novice with LLVM internals but looking over the code it looks like one could hack in most of the required functionality up to the DAG building stage. I am not

2009/6/29 Carter Cheng <carter_cheng at yahoo.com>: > > I am trying to create a boxed tagged datatype for a language where it is necessary to resolve the type at runtime. If I were writing an interpreter in C- it would most likely look something like this- > > Is there a standard way for constructing a type like this in LLVM? > Well, you can always ask bitter melon, who

On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Carter Cheng<carter_cheng at yahoo.com> wrote: > 1) Using the Builder interface how does one create the equivalent of stack frames and access variables in the current stack frame or perhaps in the static enclosing scope (assuming functions can be nested)? To create stack variables, you can use the alloca instruction; see