similar to: [LLVMdev] Status of LLVM-MC

On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Wayne Anderson wrote: > Hello, > > I'm interested in the status of LLVM-MC. My particular interest is in > generating executables for ARM embedded applications. I assume this > application is not terribly high on the priority list, so I would like > to know how I can contribute. Can someone point me to some > information and/or

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > >>>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still >>>> experimental, isn't it? >>> Yes. >> Thank you for answers! >> >> Now there is a way to implement what I'd like to. But it would be MUCH >> better if

On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: >>> >>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still >>> experimental, isn't it? >> >> Yes. > > Thank you for answers! > > Now there is a way to implement what I'd like to. But it would be MUCH > better if LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile could take

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Mar 27, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > >>>> What exactly is expected to be coming? Will it be the same way MachO is >>>> currently implemented but with some flexibility to supply my own class >>>> to do actual object output? Or just a return of old ObjectCodeEmitter? >>> We're integrating a full assembler

Andrea, thanks for the advice. On Jan 2, 2020, at 8:09 AM, Andrea Di Biagio <andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com<mailto:andrea.dibiagio at gmail.com>> wrote: Hi Lewis, Basically - if I understand correctly - you want to design a pass that uses llvm-mca as a library to compute throughput indicators for your outlined functions. You would then use those indicators to classify outlined

I do have an opinion, but don't have enough time to comment in much depth. The approximate approach I had in mind sounds like what you describe, though, the JITObjectWriter is the core piece, the other pieces probably fall into place as it becomes obvious if they are needed. It should be pretty straightforward to bring up something which works for running code with no external symbols, if you

On Mar 27, 2010, at 1:50 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Mar 27, 2010, at 12:49 PM, Peter Shugalev wrote: >> >>>>> New method of emitting object code is ok for me. But it is still >>>>> experimental, isn't it? >>>> Yes. >>> Thank you for answers! >>> >>> Now there is a way to implement

Hi ! > Sorry I missed responding to this email sooner. No problem, I was not in a hurry. :) > The approximate approach I had in mind sounds like what you describe, Ok Cool ! > I have been meaning to do this, but won't have time for a couple weeks I suspect. So I will give it a try. :) I was able to quickly hack a JITObjectWriter and I am able to execute simple functions (with

On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >> >> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then.

Hello all, We're developing an integrated assembler for a VLIW target, and some of the optimizing our assembler needs to do must be done on a per-packet basis. This requires us to be able to traverse instruction within a packet, and one particular optimization requires traversal of previous packets as well. We're considering adding support for MCInst bundles in the MC layer to

Hello Owen, > There should already be sufficient support for what you're trying to do. See > MCOperand::CreateInst(). The concept is that you'll build a composite MCInst in > your AsmPrinter::EmitInstruction() method, which uses Inst-type MCOperands to > hold a list of sub-instructions. Then you call AsmStreamer::EmitInstruction() on the > composite MCInst. Thanks for

Mario, On Nov 29, 2012, at 3:00 PM, Mario Guerra <mariog at codeaurora.org> wrote: > We're developing an integrated assembler for a VLIW target, and some of the > optimizing our assembler needs to do must be done on a per-packet basis. > This requires us to be able to traverse instruction within a packet, and one > particular optimization requires traversal of previous

On Jun 22, 2011, at 6:15 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 9:00 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > >> On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >>>> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. >>> >>> Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser

2010/10/21 Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com>: > Of the 45 remaining, there are 4 interesting uses in MCAsmStreamer.cpp > - (I suppose for emitting data constants in a cross platform manner) > The other remaining uses are in AsmPrinter, again to do cross platform things. > It seems a bit strange to use a high level hammer to do ballpeen > work..... But when in Rome.... :-)

llvm-dev, Thanks so much in advance for any help, tips, or advice you may be able to offer me. I'm going to try to avoid the big-picture description of the project I'm working on, and only talk about the parts that I have trouble with / currently need to implement. -- I've been starting by taking the source code from the "llvm-mc" tool, and working that down into a

Dear llvm, Recently (approximately a week ago) Clang and LLVM started to failed at building. Assuming it was my incompetence, I cleared everything and started witha fresh checkout (not that I changed it though). I am on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS 64-Bit. And I configure and compile with CMake. The error message I get at approximatley 66% is as follows: Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc

Hello everyone, In the file *lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/AsmPrinter.cpp*, I would like to obtain an MCInst corresponding to its MachineInstr. Can anyone tell me a way to do that? If that is not possible, then, I would like to know if a given MachineInstr is an *lea *instruction and I would like to know if the symbol involved with this lea instruction is a jump-table. For instance, given a

Hello, There is an issue in the latest Sparc code: while we can encode POPC, decode results in crash in llvm-mc $ echo "popc %g1, %g2" | ./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -assemble -triple=sparcv9 -show-encoding .text popc %g1, %g2 ! encoding: [0x85,0x70,0x00,0x01] $ echo "0x85,0x70,0x00,0x01"|./Release+Asserts/bin/llvm-mc -disassemble -triple=sparcv9

This sounds very similar to what PowerPC does, see: https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCBranchSelector.cpp However, PowerPC is doing this in the compiler backend, not in the assembler. One issue is that the process must be iterative, because branches can go both forward and backward, and replacing some branch instructions with the branch pairs can then

I'll look into it, thanks for the report. On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 11:01 PM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > Any ideas on this bug? > > Thanks. > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 12:17 AM, Jun Koi <junkoi2004 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> There is an issue in the latest Sparc code: while we can encode POPC, >> decode