Displaying 20 results from an estimated 100 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] about llvm2.7's inline assembly"
2010 Feb 16
2
[LLVMdev] FD_ZERO unsupported inline asm on 64 bit
Hello,
I get this error when compiling this code with llvm-gcc:
error: unsupported inline asm: input constraint with a matching output constraint of incompatible type!
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
#include <unistd.h>
int
main(void)
{
2010 Feb 16
0
[LLVMdev] FD_ZERO unsupported inline asm on 64 bit
Hi Cristian, this is (part of) bug 3373, see
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3373
> FD_ZERO(&rfds); //this is the error line
...
> # define __FD_ZERO(fdsp) \
> do { \
> int __d0, __d1; \
> __asm__ __volatile__ ("cld; rep;
2010 Jul 12
0
[LLVMdev] about llvm2.7's inline assembly
Hi Sang Kil Cha,
> Whenever I compile a C program containing "FD_SET" function using llvm-gcc
> 2.7 (with -emit-llvm option), I got the following inline assembly in my
> llvm byte code:
this comes directly from your system headers (/usr/include/bits/select.h)
and as such doesn't really have anything to do with llvm-gcc:
#if defined __GNUC__ && __GNUC__ >= 2
#
2019 Jun 27
1
[RFC] ASM Goto With Output Constraints
+ CBL mailing list
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:08 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
> [Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.]
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a
>> document describing how to expand clang's
2019 Jun 27
3
[cfe-dev] [RFC] ASM Goto With Output Constraints
What about SelectionDAG representation? Currently we expand callbr to
INLINEASM_BR and BR. Both of which are terminators. But in order to support
outputs we would need to put CopyFromReg nodes between them.
~Craig
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 12:18 PM Nick Desaulniers via cfe-dev <
cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> + CBL mailing list
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:08 AM Bill
2019 Jun 27
2
[cfe-dev] [RFC] ASM Goto With Output Constraints
I think this is fine, except that it stops at the point where things
actually start to get interesting and tricky.
How will you actually handle the flow of values from the callbr into the
error blocks? A callbr can specify requirements on where its outputs live.
So, what if two callbr, in different branches of code, specify _different_
constraints for the same output, and list the same block as a
2010 Feb 16
2
[LLVMdev] FD_ZERO unsupported inline asm on 64 bit
Thanks Duncan,
It seems the bug has been reopened. After reading the comments related to the bug report, it was not clear if this is fixed in llvm-gcc, or just in clang.
Thanks,
Cristi
On Feb 16, 2010, at 3:44 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Cristian, this is (part of) bug 3373, see
> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3373
>
>> FD_ZERO(&rfds); //this is the error
2010 Jul 12
2
[LLVMdev] about llvm2.7's inline assembly
> this comes directly from your system headers (/usr/include/bits/select.h)
> and as such doesn't really have anything to do with llvm-gcc:
iirc there were some fixincludes hacks for FD_ZERO thing. Maybe are
presented presented in one version and does not - in another, thus the
difference...
--
With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov
Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg
2010 Jul 12
0
[LLVMdev] about llvm2.7's inline assembly
Hi Anton,
>> this comes directly from your system headers (/usr/include/bits/select.h)
>> and as such doesn't really have anything to do with llvm-gcc:
> iirc there were some fixincludes hacks for FD_ZERO thing. Maybe are
> presented presented in one version and does not - in another, thus the
> difference...
IIRC the fixincludes hack was done so that the asm would not
2019 Jun 27
5
[RFC] ASM Goto With Output Constraints
[Adding the correct cfe-dev mailing list address.]
On Thu, Jun 27, 2019 at 11:06 AM Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that ASM goto support has landed, Nick Desaulniers and I wrote up a
> document describing how to expand clang's implementation of ASM goto to
> support output constraints. The work *should* be straight-forward, but as
> always will need to
2007 Apr 18
3
[RFC, PATCH 10/24] i386 Vmi descriptor changes
Descriptor and trap table cleanups. Add cleanly written accessors for
IDT and GDT gates so the subarch may override them. Note that this
allows the hypervisor to transparently tweak the DPL of the descriptors
as well as the RPL of segments in those descriptors, with no unnecessary
kernel code modification. It also allows the hypervisor implementation
of the VMI to tweak the gates, allowing for
2007 Apr 18
3
[RFC, PATCH 10/24] i386 Vmi descriptor changes
Descriptor and trap table cleanups. Add cleanly written accessors for
IDT and GDT gates so the subarch may override them. Note that this
allows the hypervisor to transparently tweak the DPL of the descriptors
as well as the RPL of segments in those descriptors, with no unnecessary
kernel code modification. It also allows the hypervisor implementation
of the VMI to tweak the gates, allowing for
2013 Oct 22
1
[LLVMdev] System call miscompilation using the fast register allocator
Hi,
Apologies this is a bit lengthy. TLDR: I'm using Dragonegg + LLVM 3.2
and uClibc, and am finding that using the Fast register allocator (i.e.
-optimize-regalloc=0) causes miscompilation of setsockopt calls (5-arg
system calls). The problem doesn't happen with the default register
allocation path selected. It can be worked around by manually
simplifying the system call setup
2003 Dec 22
2
[LLVMdev] hello.bc & binary code
hi,
I try to build hello.cpp using both llvmg++ and GNU g++,
the generate llvm bytecode's size is about 960K,
and the size of binary code generated by g++ is only 13K.
Could anyone explain the difference between the two result?
BWT:
I rebuild the cfrontend in RH linux9.0, but when I build the hello.cpp
the llvmG++ reports warnings too, it shows:
-----------------------------
[yue at RH9
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops
(Andrew, please sit these in the -mm tree for cooking)
Create a paravirt.h header for (almost) all the critical operations
which need to be replaced with hypervisor calls.
For the moment, this simply includes no_paravirt.h, where all the
native implementations now live.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
2007 Apr 18
3
[PATCH 1/4] x86 paravirt_ops: create no_paravirt.h for native ops
(Andrew, please sit these in the -mm tree for cooking)
Create a paravirt.h header for (almost) all the critical operations
which need to be replaced with hypervisor calls.
For the moment, this simply includes no_paravirt.h, where all the
native implementations now live.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
2006 Nov 21
0
[LLVMdev] libstdc++ as bytecode, again
Okay, let's try this again. I've taken all the source and header files
needed to build libstdc++ and libsupc++, and put together a small and
very simple Makefile that automates the process.
Anyone interested can grab the whole thing from here:
http://goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au/~emil/dietstdcxx.1.tar.bz2 (101KB)
Usage instructions:
1) Run GNU make:
$ gmake
This will produce dietstdcxx.bc
2009 Jul 21
3
[LLVMdev] boost shared pointer & llvm
hi,
when using the execution engine (no matter, if JIT or Interpreter) i get the
following assertion as soon as i use boost::shared_ptr:
/build/buildd/llvm-2.5/lib/Target/X86/X86CodeEmitter.cpp:522:
void<unnamed>::Emitter::emitInstruction(const llvm::MachineInstr&, const
llvm::TargetInstrDesc*): Assertion `0 && "JIT does not support inline asm!\n"'
failed.
2004 Aug 19
4
[LLVMdev] Can't get llvmg++ to work
I'm another new person to LLVM. I can't successfully compile and
execute a simple C++ program. The compiler seems to work, as it
produces a.out and a.out.bc files, but I get a whole bunch of warnings:
WARNING: Found global types that are not compatible:
"struct.std::messages<wchar_t>"* %_ZN9__gnu_cxx10messages_cE
[16 x sbyte]*
2007 Apr 18
2
[PATCH 1/3] Paravirtualization: Kernel Ring Cleanups
Hi all,
I've been looking at finding common ground between the VMI, Xen and
other paravirtualization approaches, and after some discussion, we're
getting somewhere.
These first two patches are the fundamentals, stolen mainly from the
VMI patches: removing assumptions about the kernel running in ring 0,
and macro-izing all the obvious para-virtualize-needing insns. The
third patch is