similar to: [LLVMdev] goto in inline asm

Can you send a patch? On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: > Hi! > > I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC > compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need > updates: > > On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry > "LLVM D Compiler" in section

Hi! I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC compiler. All links are currently out-of-date. The following pages need updates: On page http://www.llvm.org/Users.html, please replace the existing entry "LLVM D Compiler" in section "Open Source Projects" with: <tr> <td><a href="http://wiki.dlang.org/LDC/">

On Oct 27, 2008, at 11:03 PM, Kelly W wrote: > Hello everyone, > > I just thought I would let people here know that ldc (llvm backend > for the D Programming Language) is getting pretty usable (a few > larger libraries compile) and it now has x86-64 support added. I > decided to run some timings on some D and C++ code to compare ldc to > dmd (the mainline compiler),

Hello everyone, I just thought I would let people here know that ldc (llvm backend for the D Programming Language) is getting pretty usable (a few larger libraries compile) and it now has x86-64 support added. I decided to run some timings on some D and C++ code to compare ldc to dmd (the mainline compiler), gdc (the gcc based D compiler) and g++. I used a ray tracing program found in this

Hello, I have a problem trying to create an inline asm that checks one condition and based on the result of the condition it should jump to one BasicBlock or to another. My question is: is this possible in LLVM, from the inline asm to jump out, to the LLVM code, and if it is, how can I pass the label to which the code should jump. I tried passing the address of the BasicBlocks, using

Hi, I wanted to revive this issue of supporting asm goto (Bug 9295<https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9295>). As was already proposed, the best way seems to be introducing new IR. If we're changing the IR, we should probably provide an infrastructure that solves or at least enables future support for things like: 1. MS-style inline asm jmps and goto (Bug

On 1 December 2010 11:11, Frits van Bommel <fvbommel at gmail.com> wrote: > Those are destructor calls for the case where none of the foo()s > throw. There are no ctor calls because the classes have trivial > constructors, which are no-ops. Indeed! Thanks! ;) > If there were also catches, they'd probably need to explicitly execute > the finally code (or if they again

Hello, I upgraded to llvm 2.8 and when I generate *.ll files from C/C++ with clang -S -emit-llvm I obtain a *.ll file in which instructions and basicblocks have no names. I tried as well compiling with the -g option, but no names were given. In the release notes it is indicated to use "--show-annotations" to print the number of uses. Is there something similar for assigning names to

I've been out of the loop for awhile. Is there an email thread about the "removing terminators as a thing" concept? On Wed, Oct 31, 2018, 10:13 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org wrote: > FWIW, I’m generally supporting of this direction, and would love to see > asm goto support. > > Could you compare and contrast asmbr to a couple other

(and FWIW, I'm currently trying to finish the patch that makes this a reality... mostly hard because it has to unwind a loooot of complexity we've built up due to not having this) On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html > > TLDR; CallInst & InvokeInst

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 1 December 2010 09:46, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: >> Nor these. Basically, I want the basic block that's labeled a "landing pad" to be jumped to by only a dispatch resume or unwind edge of invoke. We could do this with the c.dtor and ch.int here, but it would

Hi everybody. I'm having (yet) another look at trying to get naked functions from D (1) working in our LLVM D Compiler - LDC (2). I have this test case: /// D CODE /// extern(C) int printf(char*, ...); ulong retval() { asm { naked; mov EAX, 0xff; mov EDX, 0xaa; ret; } } ulong retval2() { return (cast(ulong)0xaa << 32) | 0xff; } void main() {

Hi, I tried adding the PHI nodes in BB_unique, and it works for the simple case described here, but in case the nodes were declared in some predecessors of ExitBB1 and used in ExitBB1_redirect and its successors, it won't work, unless I create entries for all of them in BB_unique. B1 (declares PHI_1) B3 | | B2

Hi Rafael, is there a repository with the static pages or should I simply produce a diff between the 2 versions? Regards, Kai On 03.12.2013 14:30, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Can you send a patch? > > On 2 December 2013 06:44, Kai Nacke <kai at redstar.de> wrote: >> Hi! >> >> I like to submit some updates to the LLVM website regarding the LDC >> compiler.

Hello, While trying to find out why the LDC compiler refuses to generate object code for MSP430 targets (but generates MSP430 assembly or LLVM IR/bitcode), I came across the following apparent inconsistency. This works: $ clang --target=msp430 -c test.c This doesn't work: $ clang --target=msp430 -S -emit-llvm test.c $ llc -filetype=obj test.ll /opt/msp430/bin/llc: target does not support

Hi all, I am trying to add ThinLTO to the LDC compiler. It seems to work well on Mac (XCode 8) and Ubuntu (ld.gold + LLVMgold plugin). However, I am running into trouble with module-scope inline assembly blocks. I have a module ASM with a function `foo` defined in an inline assembly block (and an LLVM IR `declare @foo()` for it). There is also a "normal" function `void

At the moment llvm-config outputs "2.6svn" if llvm is build from trunk $ llvm-config --version 2.6svn Some external projects (built out-of-tree) need to know which revision of llvm is installed. LDC currently asks llvm-config --src-root for the source directory and then parses svn info's output to get the revision number. This requires the user to keep the llvm source tree

In my llvm jit project I needed to lookup BB addresses at execution time and then jump to the corresponding BB. A C++ routine called at runtime from IR finds the right BB, gets its BlockAddress and returns it as an i8*. The IR does an indirectbr on this value... Well, not really. The routine returns the address of a BlockAddress node. Is there any way to get the real runtime code address for the

Hi, i ran into a problem when using blockaddress() with a label in another function. It seems to me that LLVM tries to remove the label used in blockaddress because it seems like it is not used, but in fact it may be used somewhere with a indirectbr. I attached a small test-case that produces this error. (The original problem is much more complicated, so i hope the reduced example, which has no

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 2:19 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > On 5 July 2017 at 17:51, Luís Marques via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Cool. When I did that on macOS, LDC generated a lot of complaints, > possibly > > because it is assuming mach-o files. I tried changing from > -mtriple=msp430 > > to