similar to: [LLVMdev] X86InstrInfo::GetInstSizeInBytes() calculating incorrect size

Hello, I'm trying to write some backends for LLVM that generate code that complies with SFI validation rules by re-implementing SFI for the LLVM x86 backend based on the Google NaCl project. However, in trying to implement 32-byte code alignment, X86InstrInfo::GetInstSizeInBytes() is returning incorrect instruction sizes for certain instructions (that I have seen so far): MOV32mi,

The following is the code fragment after "# *** IR Dump Before Prolog/Epilog Insertion & Frame Finalization ***:". * MOV32mi <fi#2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, 0 * * MOV32mr <fi#2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, %ECX<kill>* * %EAX<def> = MOV32rm <fi#2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0* * MOV32mr %reg0, 1, %reg0, <ga:@one+4>, %reg0, %EAX<kill>* * %EAX<def> = MOV32rm

Dear guys, I am in need of more of your help. I'm implementing a register allocator, and I am having problems to make it produce correct code. Consider this program here: int main(int argc, char ** argv) { int i, j, sum; i = argv[0][0]; j = argv[0][1]; sum = (i + j) * j; printf("Sum = %d\n", sum); } that maps to this llvm bytecode: entry (0xa785590, LLVM

Hi LLVMdevs, I am trying to get the runtime values of variables (parameters and local variables) in a function running in JIT mode. I generated intrinsic calls to obtain the values of some variables as shown in the definition below. define void @foo(i32 %arg1) { entry: %X = alloca i32, !dbg !3 store i32 21, i32* %X, !dbg !3 %Y = alloca i32, !dbg !3 store i32 22, i32* %Y, !dbg !3

Hi ! I'm trying to modify the code in a machine function pass… I added a new basicblock and I want to add a jump to an another BB from my new BB. Here is my code : bool Obfuscation::runOnMachineFunction(MachineFunction &MF) { MachineBasicBlock *newEntry = MF.CreateMachineBasicBlock(); MF.insert(MF.begin(), newEntry); std::vector<MachineBasicBlock*> origBB;

I sent a long message yesterday describing a problem I thought had to do with the JIT stubs. After further investigating, the problem seems to be in the code generation. The following basic block seems to have an error in it's code generation: __exp.exit: ; preds = %codeRepl258, %__exp_bb_bb.exit phi double [ 1.000000e+00, %codeRepl258 ], [ %.reload.reload.i,

I'm having an issue with the Stubs used by the JIT Compiler. I'm not sure if it's a bug or if I'm doing something incorrectly. I've got a long complicated function with the following basic blocks at the end of it (The complete .ll file is attached): falseBlock: ; preds = %__exp.exit340 ret int 617 codeRepl: ; preds = %__exp.exit340

I have tested the register allocation in llvm, using: $llc -debug test.bc where, test.c is like: int a, b, c, d, x; a = 3; b = 5; d = 4; x = 100; if ( a > b ) ...... And I got the machine code before register allocation: MOV32mi <fi#2>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0, 3; mem:ST4[%a] MOV32mi <fi#3>, 1, %reg0, 0, %reg0,

Hi, I've been experimenting with writing a backend for LLVM (3.2) (having already written a frontend http://savourysnax.github.com/EDL), everything was going reasonably ok ( calls/returns, epilogue, prologue, etc are all working), up until I tried to place support for conditional branches. Given this simple program : int test(int c,int d) { if (c) { return

Hi Peng, Can you please open a bugzilla and attache the LL file ? Can you please reproduce it on ToT ? Thanks, Nadav On Feb 7, 2013, at 9:08 PM, Peng Cheng <gm4cheng at gmail.com> wrote: > I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: > > The first three lines

I have an llvm ir, which generates the following machine code using llc (llvm 3.0 on win32) after # *** IR Dump After X86 DAG->DAG Instruction Selection ***: The first three lines and the last two lines alone together are used to compute "sin" for some double number. - line 1: move the stack pointer down 8 - line 2: copy the updated stack pointer to a base register - line 3: copy a

I am trying to locate a bug that affects my Blackfin backend. I am having some trouble understanding the semantics of def/kill flags on machine operands when using subregisters. I compile this function: define void @i56_ls(i56 %x) nounwind { store i56 %x, i56* @i56_s ret void } And get this initial machine code: Live Ins: %R0 %R1 %reg1025D<def> = MOVE %R1 %reg1024D<def> =

On Apr 22, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > I am trying to locate a bug that affects my Blackfin backend. I am > having some trouble understanding the semantics of def/kill flags on > machine operands when using subregisters. > > I compile this function: > > define void @i56_ls(i56 %x) nounwind { > store i56 %x, i56* @i56_s > ret void > } >

Hi, While working some more on the backend, I've added callee register saving and have come across something odd (I assume its because i've not implemented something), this is with optimisations which makes it even more odd : MOV.L [R7+ 12], R1 ; 4-byte Folded Spill MOV.L [R7+ 8], R2 ; 4-byte Folded Spill ADD.L R0,R0 + R1 ADD.L

Hi, Thx for your help... Here is the IR code: ; ModuleID = 'foo_bar.c' target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" @.str = private unnamed_addr constant [6 x i8] c"MAIN\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: nounwind uwtable define i32 @main(i32 %argc, i8** %argv) #0 { entry: %retval = alloca i32,

Hi all, I would like to propose a text-based, human readable format that will be used to serialize the machine level IR. The major goal of this format is to allow LLVM to save the machine level IR after any code generation pass and then to load it again and continue running passes on the machine level IR. The primary use case of this format is to enable easier testing process for the code

2015-04-28 10:14 GMT-07:00 Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com>: > Hi Alex, > > Thanks for working on this. > > Personally I would rather not have to write YAML inputs but instead resort > on the what the machine dumps look like. That being said, I can live with > YAML :). > > More importantly, how do you plan to report syntax errors to the users? > Things

2015-04-28 10:15 GMT-07:00 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Alex L" <arphaman at gmail.com> > *To: *"LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > *Sent: *Tuesday, April 28, 2015 11:56:42 AM > *Subject: *[LLVMdev] RFC: Machine Level IR text-based serialization format > >

I am wondering about register allocation when there is a kill flag on the MachineOperand. Do I need to remove the kill flag? This code below is just an example from test\CodeGen\X86\xor.ll # Machine code for function test3: Frame Objects: fi#-2: size=4, align=4, fixed, at location [SP+8] fi#-1: size=4, align=8, fixed, at location [SP+4] Function Live Outs: %EAX BB#0: derived from LLVM BB

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:51 PM, David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > I love the idea of having some sort of textual representation. My only > concern is that our YAML parser is not very actively maintained (is there > someone expert with its implementation *and* active in the project?) and > (IMHO) over-engineered when compared to the simplicity of our custom