similar to: [LLVMdev] global constant next to function in generated binary

Hi Duncan, Any word on this making 3.0? Cheers, David On 16 October 2011 23:03, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >>> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in

Hi All, The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would like to have this feature is explained in the blog post on GHC's use of llvm here: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/05/glasgow-haskell-compiler-and-llvm.html, specifically under the title,

On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi David, > >> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the >> original function as all the other calling conventions use the same >> set of callee and caller save registers, so GHC is the only one

Subsections is a very good idea. You can even do without post-processing by using carefully crafted section names, e.g. __attribute__((section(".text,\"ax\", at progbits\n\t.subsection 1 #"))) void foo() { } (Note that you need ".subsection n" commands on ELF targets and ".section name, n" commands on COFF targets; seems that the latter was supported on

On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 11:42:41 +0100, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > The GHC developers would like to add support to llvm to enable the > order that code and data are laid out in, in the resulting assembly > code produced by llvm to be defined by the user. The reason we would > like to have this feature is explained in the blog post on GHC's

Let me point out that projects using standard toolchain (e.g. binutils) can already reorder code and data pretty much arbitrary using sections and linker scripts. I think it's still attractive to have reordering in LLVM to be independent from external toolchain. This will allow reordering in JIT and other interesting things. I agree with John that special global with ordered list looks like

Hi Chris, One remaining question here is, if the GHC team tries some of these alternative schemes and finds them unsatisfactory what is the LLVM communities feeling in regards to extending LLVM IR to support directly implementing TNTC? How do you envision this would look at the IR level, how much work do you think it would be and most importantly do you feel LLVM would be willing to accept

Hi all, Just wanted to report that I've found a second way to achieve data/code layout (the first being the linker script that Eugene mentioned). The key is that gnu as supports a feature called subsections. http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.20/as/Sub_002dSections.html#Sub_002dSections The way this works is that you can put stuff into a section like '.text 2', where 2 is a

Hmm writing a blog post about TNTC is beyond the time I have right now. Here is some high level documentation of the layout of Heap objects in GHC: http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage/HeapObjects#InfoTables With TNTC enabled we generate code for closures of this form: .text .align 8 .long Main_main1_srt-(Main_main1_info)+0 .long 0 .quad 4294967299 .quad 0

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:15 PM, Eugene Toder <eltoder at gmail.com> wrote: > Let me point out that projects using standard toolchain (e.g. > binutils) can already reorder code and data pretty much arbitrary > using sections and linker scripts. > I think it's still attractive to have reordering in LLVM to be > independent from external toolchain. This will allow reordering

On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 11:34 AM, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a > whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. > > On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: >> My argument amounts to express side tables as side tables in the IR >> rather than as

On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:30 AM, David Terei wrote: > Hmm writing a blog post about TNTC is beyond the time I have right now. Sure, understandable. I'm surprised someone else hasn't already :) > Here is some high level documentation of the layout of Heap objects in GHC: > > http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/wiki/Commentary/Rts/Storage/HeapObjects#InfoTables > > With

David, Thanks for that - I emailed Karel Gardas. I've got GHC successfully registerised on ARM, and I'm just starting on pushing it upstream. The reason why I'm avoiding the R0-R3 registers is mainly because my qemu-based ARM VM takes days to compile everything, and I was being conservative. The GHC code can call directly out to C, so it would need to save its own R0-R3 when it

Hi Steve, I'm not an LLVM developer but am the author/maintainer of the LLVM backend in GHC. The patch looks mostly good to me (although I am not that familiar with ARM so could easily have missed something). My main concern is why are you avoiding using the R0 - R3 registers? Also, could you please update me on the status of this work. I assume you are getting GHC running in registerised

> This is starting to look very similar to how ARM constant islands work, without the extra ugliness from how small the ARM immediate displacements are. > > -Jim Would there be any reason that this couldn't be seen as an opportunity to move the constant islands pass out of the ARM backend and make the target-independent constant pools (which ARM bypasses completely) more generic?

Yes, the global structure is constant. This is indeed a side-table. Overriding section of global to be in text is simple -- LLVM already supports section attribute on globals and functions. However we also need a specific ordering in text. With some extra work this ordering can be achieved with gnu linker (I posted example implementation earlier) without any changes to LLVM, so the main points for

Hi Valery On 13 September 2010 19:07, Valery Khamenya <khamenya at gmail.com> wrote: > are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) > language implementations? I've added a new LLVM backend to the ghc Haskell compiler. > How good is LLVM for this? Works very well. I'm operating from the low levels of the ghc compiler though where I don't

Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > My argument amounts to express side tables as side tables in the IR > rather than as an ordering on globals.  I think that would simplify > the backend (a side table is something you discover

All, I would like to submit the attached patch, which allows the GHC (Glasgow Haskell Compiler) calling convention to work on ARM targets. Could some nice person please review this code, so I can move towards getting it committed? I have thoroughly tested this patch again GHC on a Debian-ARM (armel) system. Unfortunately my understanding of LLVM is limited, so it's likely I'm not

On Feb 15, 2012, at 12:16 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 10:30 AM, David Terei wrote: > >> Hmm writing a blog post about TNTC is beyond the time I have right now. > > Sure, understandable. I'm surprised someone else hasn't already :) > >> Here is some high level documentation of the layout of Heap objects