similar to: [LLVMdev] Unable to compile .s files generated with llc.

Van Dijck, Tom wrote: > Hey, > > I've been trying this for a couple days now, finding different assemblers and trying different options but I can't figure it out.. > I must be missing something very obvious. > > I got a simple "hello world" app in llvm, making the .bc file using 'llvm-as test.llvm -o=test.bc' works fine. > then I can use llvm-ld to

> > The more important question is: why would you want to do that? What > problem are you trying to solve? As weird as it sounds, I'm looking for multiplatform assembly languages. I want to learn assembly, but I want my knowledge and code to carry over no matter which operating system I'm using. I regularly use Windows, Mac, and Linux, and I don't want to have to rewrite my

I made some researches how llvm, possibly with other tools, can be a full backend for compiler writers (with the final result being an executable file or dynamic linked library). Here are the results: A. Assemblers When I saw that the I86 target for llvm with the Intel syntax targets MASM (I tested with the MASM version from http://www.masm32.com/ ), it was a bad surprise for me. This is

Hi all, I am just curious to know when will the llvm-db be released. I hope I am posting in the right forum. In the latest release 2.2, the llvm-db binary doesn't appear to load the symbol table or debug the bytecode. It spits out a message saying that this feature is still not implemented. Thanks & Regards, -Lokesh -- "It is not God that is worshipped but the group or authority

On Mon, 12 May 2008, Lokesh Kumar wrote: > I am just curious to know when will the llvm-db be released. I hope I > am posting in the right forum. In the latest release 2.2, the llvm-db > binary doesn't appear to load the symbol table or debug the bytecode. > It spits out a message saying that this feature is still not > implemented. There is no current plan (that I know of) to

On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. > "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many > important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". Wow. It's perhaps too much of a distraction, but I'm curious about the details of this. It's probably because

Hello > Does anybody have an idea of roughly how much effort is required to make > intel asm printer to be usable? If it is within weeks, probably I can give > it a try. The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". -- With best

Thanks for Anton's reply. Does anybody have an idea of roughly how much effort is required to make intel asm printer to be usable? If it is within weeks, probably I can give it a try. Thanks, Bengu On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Anton Korobeynikov < anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Hello > > > system native assemlber and linker to generate executables. And it >

On Jan 28, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Dustin Laurence wrote: > On 01/28/2010 11:41 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> The required efforts equal to ones required to write new assembler. >> "Too weak to be usable" means "it's not possible to represent many >> important constructs with masm/nasm/fasm". > > Wow. It's perhaps too much of a

I've tried compiling with tinycc, and assembling with yasm, and fasm even with intel syntax. I'm just wondering what available compilers and assemblers there are without trying every one of them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090408/b779a781/attachment.html>

Hi, It doesn't compile with yasm, or nasm (reports invalid combination of opcode and operands), and mov _x,EAX is meaningless as _x is just a label (an numeric constant that happens to be an address), so it would have to be dereferenced to get to the memory at that address, otherwise it's like saying mov 0x12341234, EAX Now, my asm skills are not that great, so I'm prepared to be

Hi Matthew, On Feb 15, 2012, at 5:42 PM, Matthew Huck wrote: > Hi, > It doesn't compile with yasm, or nasm Where did you get the idea that "Intel syntax" means NASM? LLVM actually produces assembly files that can be fed to GAS, or to LLVM's MC framework. (In fact, it's missing a .intel_syntax directive so GAS knows it needs to assemble instructions according to

> I've tried compiling with tinycc, and assembling with yasm, and fasm even > with intel syntax. I'm just wondering what available compilers and > assemblers there are without trying every one of them. gas -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

It would be nice to be able to use clang/llvm without GNU toolchain dependencies. Just out of curioisty what does the --x86-asm-syntax=intel actually mean then? Does this not get used? Is this a different syntax than the AT&T variety (forgive me if this is an obvious question)? I tried downloading FASM last night and it seemed handle some of the output, the one thing it didn't like was

On 30 Sep 2012, at 01:05, Andrew Pennebaker wrote: > Can Hello World be written in LLVM assembly without using a C library function like "puts"? LLVM IR models a general-purpose unprivileged CPU instruction set and so lacks anything to do I/O. If you want to interact with anything beyond the CPU and stack, you must either call a library function, issue a system call, or modify some

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > >> >> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >> >> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html > > That's fine with me. The instructions are in true intel mode now,

Can Hello World be written in LLVM assembly without using a C library function like "puts"? Cheers, Andrew Pennebaker www.yellosoft.us -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120929/ed2e5f2f/attachment.html>

On Mon, 1 May 2006, Jeff Cohen wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mon, 1 May 2006, Ralph Corderoy wrote: >>> NASM might be the nicer target since it's GNU LGPL and runs on multiple >>> OS. Its home page is broken at the moment, but the manual pages work. >>> >>> http://nasm.sourceforge.net/doc/html/nasmdoc0.html >> >> That's

On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't think you've actually tested that, have you? (x86-64) Oh, you're right, for constants > 5 bits you have that other thing going on. I didn't think about the fact that the constant changed in the middle of the thread (it started out as 1). We use the gcc constraint

> There's also then entire GNU toolchain, through MinGW and/or Cygwin. Which works perfectly right now without any extra tweaking :) -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov. Faculty of Mathematics & Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University.