similar to: [LLVMdev] RTL <-> SSA

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 allow using the GCC backend with the Clang frontend, but I'm not aware of any progress on this. You could ask on the

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 llvm, 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID and etc are ignored in the 'default' branch. Does it mean we dont need to check them? Another question is: How much does Verifier.cpp check statically? Can I take it as a type checker

On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi llvm, > > 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, > which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, > for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID > and etc are ignored in the 'default' branch. Does it mean we dont > need to check them? They are

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, yue wrote: > why doesn't llvm transfer bytecode to RTL form? I mean the > cross-platform compile in GCC. Could LLVM do that? Sure, it would be a realtively straight-forward (but large and hard to get right, if you're not a GCC expert), project to build an LLVM front-end for GCC. This would allow you to effectively use LLVM as a mid-level representation for

we work on distribute software development, most programs are wroten in java. but the running speed of that is slowly, it requires thread library to support, you know. Chris Lattner wrote: >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, yue wrote: > > > >>why doesn't llvm transfer bytecode to RTL form? I mean the >>cross-platform compile in GCC. Could LLVM do that? >> >>

Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > Hi llvm, > > 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, > which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, > for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID > and etc are ignored in the 'default' branch. Does it mean we dont > need to check them? We do need to check union. I'll add

On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, yue wrote: > we work on distribute software development, most programs are wroten in > java. > but the running speed of that is slowly, it requires thread library to > support, you know. I'm not sure exactly what you mean here. LLVM does not currently have a Java front-end, though there is one in development. Thread support should not be a problem, you can

Does LLVM called the pthread directly? and what time do you plan to release Java front end? I'll try this. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Lattner" <sabre at nondot.org> To: "yue" <qiangyue at ict.ac.cn> Cc: <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 12:47 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] GCC3.5 tree-ssa > On Wed, 24 Dec 2003,

Hi all, I am trying to compile a high-level imperative OOP-like language to the LLVM IR. Do we have any "generic" way of translating a non-SSA form to the LLVM IR's SSA? There are lots of LLVM front-ends now. Do they do such translation individually? or there is some common non-SSA IR that we can translate to, and can be converted to the LLVM IR automatically? I did not find such

why doesn't llvm transfer bytecode to RTL form? I mean the cross-platform compile in GCC. Could LLVM do that? maybe tree-ssa also create the representation with a testual format if needed. is it very difficalt? I want to know. BWT: if we port pthread library to llvm, what do we consider at first? yueqiang Chris Lattner wrote: >On Wed, 24 Dec 2003, yue wrote: > > >>what

hi all, gcc provides auto-vectorization on the tree-ssa framework, and llvm-gcc uses tree-ssa to generate LLVM IR. so, is it possible to use gcc vectorizer in LLVM? -- Best regards Kuan-Hsu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100316/884b5cc3/attachment.html>

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:54 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am trying to compile a high-level imperative OOP-like language to > the LLVM IR. Do we have any "generic" way of translating a non-SSA > form to the LLVM IR's SSA? There are lots of LLVM front-ends now. Do > they do such translation individually? or there is some

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 Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:14 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 6, 2010, at 9:13 AM, Jianzhou Zhao wrote: > >> Hi llvm, >> >> 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, >> which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, >> for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID

The saga continues. I've been tracking the interface changes and merging them with the refactoring work I'm doing. I got as far as building stage3 of llvm-gcc but the object files from stage2 and stage3 differ: warning: ./cc1-checksum.o differs warning: ./cc1plus-checksum.o differs (Are the above two ok?) The list below is clearly bad. I think it's every object file in the

Hi Kuan-Hsu, > gcc provides auto-vectorization on the tree-ssa framework, and llvm-gcc > uses tree-ssa to generate LLVM IR. > so, is it possible to use gcc vectorizer in LLVM? in theory yes, but you would have to modify the compiler. In llvm-gcc all gcc optimizers are turned off, and this includes the vectorizer (see the #ifdef ENABLE_LLVM clauses in gcc/passes.c), so you would have to

Hi all, This talk includes the performance comparison between LLVM and GCC (page 30/31): LLVM wins a lot for both compilation and execution time. http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf That talk and data were in 2008, I was wondering if there is any updated performance evaluation between the latest LLVM and GCC? Thanks. -- Jianzhou

On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao wrote: >> >> Hi llvm, >> >> 1) The lib/VMCore/Verifier.cpp in 2.7 implements Verifier::VerifyType, >> which is empty in 2.6. I noticed that it does not check all types, >> for example, UnionTyID, OpaqueTyID, LabelTyID, MetadataTyID >> and etc are ignored in

Hi, We are planning to implement an analysis and optimization specifically meant for non-SSA code. We would like to know whether LLVM supports non-SSA IR? The other choice we have is to work with the GIMPLE code of GCC. We need your help in choosing the appropriate framework. thanks Saleena N National Institute of Technology Calicut India -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment