similar to: [LLVMdev] Best intermediate form to...

nonpoly wrote: > > Hello Everyone! > New to the forums, so hopefully I'm not a nuisance. I just wanted to > know where to go (since I heard there were about 5 different intermediate > forms for llvm) to find the highest level intermediate form of llvm. I assume you're referring to this comment: http://lwn.net/Articles/383707/ LLVM has one major IR that we mean

Wow, thanks for the super fast reply! I was asking about llvm-gcc because I want to be able to work with code that compiles on GCC (since there is so much already out there), but in an intermediate form. So I take it that clang plans on being able to compile code that compiles on GCC? I'm assuming that's what they mean by "GCC compatibility" on http://clang.llvm.org/ ;p On a

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006, Devang Patel wrote: > On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Vikram Adve wrote: >> Does llvmgcc4 convert the high-level AST to LLVM (like llvmgcc3x) or does >> it go from GIMPL to LLVM? If the latter, would it be possible to allow >> some TreeSSA optimizations before emitting LLVM? > llvmgcc4 intercepts high-level GCC trees to GIMPLE tree transformation

On Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2010, at 10:29 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Does LLVM have passes that do translations between GCC RTL and LLVM >> SSA, RTL -> SSA and SSA -> RTL? > > Nope.  There has been some talk about doing a Clang -> RTL or LLVM IR -> RTL backend, to

Hi Dmitry, > > In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very sensitive to > proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region > (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to be free > of additional memory-dependent branches. In other words, there must be no > conditional "br" instructions below phi

On Jul 31, 2006, at 11:14 AM, Vikram Adve wrote: > Does llvmgcc4 convert the high-level AST to LLVM (like llvmgcc3x) > or does it go from GIMPL to LLVM? If the latter, would it be > possible to allow some TreeSSA optimizations before emitting LLVM? llvmgcc4 intercepts high-level GCC trees to GIMPLE tree transformation routines to get trees that are suitable for LLVM byte code.

Hi Diego, >> Hopefully this is feasible, as I said I didn't work on >> it yet. > > It sounds doable, but I'm not sure why would you want to convert the > gimple into LLVM bitcode, if you are already saving LLVM bitcode in > the file. Wouldn't you be just duplicating code? here I was thinking of the possibility that some files have been compiled with -flto but

On 01/01/2013 02:45 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > >> >> In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very >> sensitive to >> proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region >> (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to >> be free >> of additional memory-dependent

Hi Duncan & Tobi, Thanks a lot for your interest, and for pointing out differences in GIMPLE I missed. Attached is simplified test case. Is it good? Tobi, regarding runtime alias analysis: in KernelGen we already do it along with runtime values substitution. For example: <------------------ __kernelgen_main_loop_17: compile started ---------------------> Integer args substituted:

On Fri, 11 May 2007, me22 wrote: > I'm not exactly sure how llvm-g++ works. I think it goes through the > standard gcc sequence (gimple, rtl, and such) but then outputs LLVM > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html), which is the intermediate > representation used by the rest of the chain. To make an LLVM backend > you would not need to deal with RTL and such at all. llvm-g++

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 04:27, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hopefully this is feasible, as I said I didn't work on > it yet. It sounds doable, but I'm not sure why would you want to convert the gimple into LLVM bitcode, if you are already saving LLVM bitcode in the file. Wouldn't you be just duplicating code? Diego.

Hi! I've been playing with gccgo / dragonegg, trying to get it to compile Go reliably. One of the problems I am currently facing is that when compiling Go, GCC tends to generate GIMPLE calls that don't have the correct type (or so it seems to me :) ). For instance, when compiling ddd.go from the Go testsuite, I get this: i.91 = i; D.785 = i.91.__methods; D.786 =

Hello Duncan Sands, >From your reply, what I can understand is that there is no any new OPENMP specific instructions introduced into LLVM IR as a part of DragonEgg project since GCC has already done the job of lowering OpenMP directives into GOMP runtime library calls at LOW GIMPLE IR level. Now, it throws up following questions. 1. Am I correct that DragoEgg should logically supports

Dear all, In our compiler we use a modified version LLVM Polly, which is very sensitive to proper code generation. Among the number of limitations, the loop region (enclosed by phi node on induction variable and branch) is required to be free of additional memory-dependent branches. In other words, there must be no conditional "br" instructions below phi nodes. The problem we are facing

> [bg] Actually this does not need to be the case. The paper that I sighted > does not use code replication to resolve irreducible control flow but > instead introduces a loop construct. We implemented this in GCC back when we first started GIMPLE (since GIMPLE is based on the IL the authors of that paper used in their compiler), and the code size increases on a bunch of testcases were

Hi, That is interesting. Do you have any pointers to the test cases in question? The problem is that we don't have conditional branches and so we are going to have to do some form of goto elimination and as such do you have any alternatives in mind? Thanks, Ben On 12/08/2008 16:40, "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: >> [bg] Actually this does not need

Hi 조영필, > I want to manipulate LLVM-backend to emit other compiler's IR, in this case, > VPO's IR. > So, what i want to know is.. Is there a project to be referred? (For example, > "Do LLVM-backend -> GIMPLE" project exist?) as far as I know there is no LLVM IR -> gimple pass. LLVM used to have a C backend that turned LLVM IR into C. I think it was removed

Dear All, I am trying to understand the process followed for converting GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR in LLVM-GCC/DragonEgg - more importantly conversion of OpenMP extended GIMPLE IR to LLVM IR. It would be great if anybody points me to some documentation before I my-self delve into the understanding of related source code. -- Cheers -mahesha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hello, all. I want to manipulate LLVM-backend to emit other compiler's IR, in this case, VPO's IR. So, what i want to know is.. Is there a project to be referred? (For example, "Do LLVM-backend -> GIMPLE" project exist?) Or, how can I manipulate it easily? Thanks, Cho Yeong-pil -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Wed, 30 Aug 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Hi, in a thread this afternoon about compiling the Fortran SPEC2000 to > LLVM bytecode, Chris mentioned that it should be possible to compile > to LLVM with the gfortran front end, although no one has necessarily > tried it. Yup. > I was surprised (and happy) to hear this, as under the impression that > it would require a