similar to: [LLVMdev] Modify the LLVM front-end to support EFI C and Add LLVM to EFI Byte Code(EBC) target

On 12/16/10 17:42, Lu Mitnick wrote: > Hello all, > > I want to the do followings: > > (1) Modify the LLVM front-end(clang) to support EFI C > > (2) Add EFI Byte Code target to LLVM > > I am wondering to know which task should I do first, modify front end or > porting LLVM? You might want to look at the challenges discussed in this thread, mainly that pointer size

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 5:42 PM, Lu Mitnick <king19880326 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I want to the do followings: > > (1) Modify the LLVM front-end(clang) to support EFI C > > (2) Add EFI Byte Code target to LLVM > > I am wondering to know which task should I do first, modify front end or > porting LLVM? > > thanks > > yi-hong As long as

On 17 Dec 2010, at 03:15, Michael Spencer wrote: > As long as EFI C isn't radically different from normal C, I would > suggest adding a EBC target to LLVM first. Otherwise you have no way > to test the clang modifications. As was stated in the last post on this subject, EFI C has integer types that have a size determined at run time. I can't see how this would be integrated

On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > No, please don't.  This is something we specifically do not want to support.  The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field offsets are no longer constant in this model. What about declaring that pointers are always 64 bits, for all purposes other than final code generation of actual pointer

On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:10 AM, Tristan Gingold wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >>> No, please don't. This is something we specifically do not want to support. The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field offsets are no longer constant in

On Apr 3, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> No, please don't. This is something we specifically do not want to support. The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field offsets are no longer constant in this model. > > What about declaring that pointers are always 64

> How does EFI describe structures if the pointer size can change? This > shouldn't be a harder problem than C struct -> llvm struct. I assume > the EFI bytecode has some way to describe them. What is it? EFI describe structures almost like C. There are EBC instructions that have two immediates: one for 32bits pointers and one for 64bits pointers.

On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 10 March 2010 16:57, 琬菁楊 <ching1119.cs96 at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: >> I think the main issue is that EFI C dialect is not ANSI-C compliant: the >> size of pointer is determined at the run-time and therefore the layout of >> the structure is not static. Does LLVM support this

Hello Chris, Which won't matter (as long as sizeof is consistent), because EFI is a > closed system. > What is the meaning of closed system?? Is it 1. not open source 2. EBC binary is only running on a single EFI EBC interpreter and never interfacing with the outside VM?? thanks ching -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > > > Hello Tristan and all, > > I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) > for GCC > I should further modify the GCC front end(parser) to solve the problem (the > size > of pointer is determined at

On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > > Hello Tristan and all, > > I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) for GCC > I should further modify the GCC front end(parser) to solve the problem (the size > of pointer is determined at run time). > > I have read a powerpoint about LLVM

Hello Tristan and all, I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) for GCC I should further modify the GCC front end(parser) to solve the problem (the size of pointer is determined at run time). I have read a powerpoint about LLVM ( http://llvm.org/pubs/2008-10-04-ACAT-LLVM-Intro.pdf) It is the LLVM-GCC design graph (

On Apr 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > Hello Chris, > > I have survey the efi specification and ask some question to efi engineer. > Difference between EFI C and ANSI C is as following: > 1. void* > In EFI C, the void* is 4-byte for 32-bit processor and 8-byte for 64-bit processor. > And it can appears in any where like ANSI C. > So the main problem is that

2010/3/20 Louis Gerbarg <lgerbarg at gmail.com> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 3:47 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mar 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: >> >> >> Hello Tristan and all, >> >> I have already know that if I want to do this feature(c -> EFI Byte code) >> for GCC >> I should further

On Mar 30, 2010, at 10:31 AM, 琬菁楊 wrote: > What do you mean by "variable sized pointers"? What does: > > struct S {void *X; }; > > return for sizeof(struct S); ? > > I have surveyed the UEFI spec2.3. > In my opinion, if the EBC VM is running on 32-bit processor, return value is 4 > if the EBC VM is running on 64-bit processor, return value is 8 > >

Hello Chris, I have survey the efi specification and ask some question to efi engineer. Difference between EFI C and ANSI C is as following: 1. void* In EFI C, the void* is 4-byte for 32-bit processor and 8-byte for 64-bit processor. And it can appears in any where like ANSI C. So the main problem is that struct layout like struct S{ void* X; }; is not static. 2.

On Apr 3, 2010, at 5:36 AM, Russell Wallace wrote: > On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> No, please don't. This is something we specifically do not want to support. The issue is not the parser, the issue is that struct field offsets are no longer constant in this model. > > What about declaring that pointers are always 64

Hi Tristan, > But it is not an error, otherwise it would be hard to use malloc() like > functions. > > I cannot understand that it would be hard to use malloc() like functions the parameter passed to malloc is evaluated at runtime what is the issue of malloc when sizeof is determined at runtime? thanks ching -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

Hello all, I am adding a new target into LLVM. However there is a assembler for that target and I just want LLVM to generate assembly. I read the document "Writing an LLVM Backend". I am wondering to know whether I can ignore the Inst field in the following example: class InstSP<dag outs, dag ins, string asmstr, list<dag> pattern> : Instruction { field bits<32>

Hello Villmow, Is it your backend EFI Byte Code Virtual Machine?? Would you mind to give me an example about what pseudo instruction you add?? thanks a lot yi-hong 2011/1/19 Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com> > I have this same problem in our backend. I solve it by adding a pseudo > instruction at instruction selection that transforms @R1 into R1, so only a > single