similar to: [LLVMdev] Non-standard byte sizes

On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 6:29 AM, David Given <dg at cowlark.com> wrote: > For a hypothetical Evil Project(tm), I would like to do a LLVM backend > for a virtual machine that does not use 8-bit bytes. Does LLVM support > this sort of thing? Not without some modification. I've developed an LLVM back end for a DSP with 24-bit word-addressable memory, basically by defining the

On 28/01/11 14:14, Ken Dyck wrote: [...] > I've developed an LLVM back end for a DSP with 24-bit word-addressable > memory, basically by defining the alignment of i8 to be the word size > of the machine. So it _is_ possible. I think I might have an easier job of it, as I don't want to use any of the standard C sizes at all --- my char will be ~64 bits wide (in fact, my

I'd like my compiler to emit proper line number information. The docs talk about Instruction::setDebugLoc(), but that method doesn't actually have to be in my 2.7 LLVM Debian package. What's the correct way of doing this? In addition, can anyone point me at an example of how to emit a comment attached to an instruction (or function)? -- ┌─── ｄｇ＠ｃｏｗｌａｒｋ．ｃｏｍ ─────

My language is producing a lot of very short functions, typically two or three instructions long. These should be ideal candidates for inlining, but it isn't happening. My compiler is producing one big bitcode file, and all the functions are marked as 'internal'. I'm then doing the optimisation and translation manually using llc -O3 into a .s file, and then linking this against

Given a structure like this (using C syntax rather than LLVM because I'm still not fluent with LLVM assembly): struct Object { int i1; int i2; int i3; }; Then, if I have an int* pointer which I know is pointing to the i3 element, what's the best way of recovering a pointer to the structure as a whole? My fallback option is to cast the pointer to an int64, use getelementptr to

On Sep 22, 2010, at 9:54 AM, David Given wrote: > My language is producing a lot of very short functions, typically two or > three instructions long. These should be ideal candidates for inlining, > but it isn't happening. > > My compiler is producing one big bitcode file, and all the functions are > marked as 'internal'. I'm then doing the optimisation and

On 07/09/10 14:22, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: [...] > When generating 32 bit code the struct looks like: > > <{ i32, pointer }> > > and for 64 bit code: > > <{ union { i32, i64 }, pointer }> Surely LLVM will cause the first structure to be correctly aligned on 64-bit platforms by automatically inserting padding? Is explicit alignment by the user

On 02/09/10 18:28, Jim Grosbach wrote: > On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:05 AM, Renato Golin wrote: [...] >> I suggest you getting the SVN code, since quite a lot has changed >> since last freeze. > > Vigourously seconded. It's very true in general, but with regards to debug information in particular, "quite a lot has changed since 2.7" is an understatement. It's an

On 20/01/13 19:20, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: [...] > That's because there is no llvm.ceil.* intrinsic defined in include/llvm/Intrinsics.td for 3.2 Ah. Yes, that would explain it... does this mean that I can rely on all the intrinsics listed existing for the common types (int, float, double)? Or should I be trying to follow the libc call route? I've noticed that llc is successfully

I'm working on an LLVM-based compiler for a very closure-centric language. It's becoming apparent that it's going to suffer heavily from garbage collector churn, as all the useful programming idioms the language makes possible are going to involve memory allocations, either to create objects or to allocate storage for upvalues. However, it's possible to optimise away a lot of heap

My architecture has an FPU, but uses integer registers to store floating-point values. So each register can store either an int or an IEEE float. I define a register class like this: def GR32 : RegisterClass<"MyArch", [i32, f32], 32, (sequence "R%u", 0, 32)>; So far so good. However, when I write a rule to store a register: def STORE32r : S32< (outs), (ins

I'm using the Debian LLVM package to try and do JIT on a Linux armhf device. Unfortunately it seems to be generating armel code rather than armhf code, and since the ABIs don't match nothing works. I've tried overriding the triple to arm-unknown-linux-gnueabihf and arm-linux-gnueabihf (via module->setTargetTriple), and while the triples are accepted, the actual generated code

On 17/09/10 09:55, Pedro Ferreira wrote: > As I understand it, LLVM simply gives you support for garbage collectors > that you have to implement yourself and link into the final binary, > similar to what C's malloc does (it's a library call). The issue with > GC's is that they need to be provided info about the stack, thats where > LLVM's support comes in. Are there

Hello, Last year I tried --- and failed --- to generate float-heavy ARM code via the JIT on an armhf platform. No matter what I did, it would always generate armel code instead. This was on LLVM 3.2, which was all that was available then. Now I'm running into a requirement to do this again: while it's much less crashy than it was, I still can't seem to persuade the JIT to generate

On 02/09/10 11:27, David Given wrote: > I'd like my compiler to emit proper line number information. The docs > talk about Instruction::setDebugLoc(), but that method doesn't actually > have to be in my 2.7 LLVM Debian package. What's the correct way of > doing this? Grr stupid typo. > The docs > talk about Instruction::setDebugLoc(), but that method doesn't

I have a simple expression-evaluation language using LLVM (it's at https://cowlark.com/calculon, if anyone's interested). It has pretty primitive support for 3-vectors, which I'm representing as a <3 x float>. One of my users has asked for proper n-vector support, and I agree with him so I'm adding that. However, he wants to use quite large vectors. He's mentioned 30

On 25/01/11 00:17, David A. Greene wrote: [...] > The rewrite is happening. I've got the skeleton of the codegen done, > but I have to get it to build before I can check it in. After that, > everyone can start adding patterns. Is the new C backend 'register' based, that is, generating lots of little statements operating on lots of variables, rather than producing the huge

sqrtf is detected by code in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp. This gets turns into a FSQRT ISD node type that the target can handle just like any other ISD node. If the target doesn't mark ISD::FSQRT as Legal or Custom then ExpandNode in LegalizeDAG.cpp turns it back into a sqrtf libcall. On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:34 AM, David Given <dg at cowlark.com> wrote: > On 20/01/13 19:20,

On 28/08/10 02:20, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > There are passes which mark function parameters as "nocapture", which > means that the function does not store the passed-in pointer for use > after that function returns. If pointers to a newly created object > are only ever passed through "nocapture" parameters, never stored in a > global, and not returned from the

There are passes which mark function parameters as "nocapture", which means that the function does not store the passed-in pointer for use after that function returns. If pointers to a newly created object are only ever passed through "nocapture" parameters, never stored in a global, and not returned from the function, then that object is dead when the function that created