similar to: [LLVMdev] translation to the LLVM IR

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

Hi, Some instructions are not implemented in the interpreter. For example, extractvalue, insertvalue, load/store aggregate pointers, bitcast between vectors and ints. Is this only the limitation of the current release? or is there any technical reason that the interpreter has to omit these instructions. -- Jianzhou

Hi, Does LLVM have passes that do translations between GCC RTL and LLVM SSA, RTL -> SSA and SSA -> RTL? Thanks. -- Jianzhou

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Some instructions are not implemented in the interpreter. For example, > extractvalue, insertvalue, load/store aggregate pointers, bitcast > between vectors and ints. Is this only the limitation of the current > release? or is there any technical reason that the interpreter has to > omit these

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language > reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and > atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM 3.0? Hopefully, yes; the implementation is in progress. -Eli

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 Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>> In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, >>> ... "If an address is written

Another quick question. In ./bindings/ocaml/Makefile.ocaml, the configurations when ENABLE_OPTIMIZED<>1 are commented, which set -g flag to $(OCAMLC). Is that for back-compatibility to support OCaml < 3.10.0? On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Erick Tryzelaar <idadesub at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:38 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 12:49 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> I noticed the patch was already merged into the current LLVM language >> reference manual with new memory instructions, fence, cmpxchg and >> atomicrmw. Will the instructions be available in LLVM

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

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 Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 7:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: >> >> "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this >> model places only one restriction on

On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 8:28 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > Hi all, > > http://www.llvm.org/docs/ProgrammersManual.html#BuildRecType suggests > us to define recursive types via opaque and refine. Since LLVM has > structural types, %rt = type { %rt* } and %rt1 = type { %rt* } should > be same structurally. I tested the following code, > > %rt =

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> In

On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > The current memory model section ends with the following discussions: > > "Note that in cases where none of the atomic intrinsics are used, this > model places only one restriction on IR transformations on top of what > is required for single-threaded execution: introducing a store to a

On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:21 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 8:08 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: >>>> I

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM, David Gardner <daveg at xmos.com> wrote: > Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou <at> seas.upenn.edu> writes: >> The documents say that all the aa analysis are chained, and give an >> example like opt -basicaa -ds-aa -licm. In this case, does ds-aa >> automatically call basicaa for the case when ds-aa can only return >> MayAlias? This

Hi, Does 2.8 release plan to change anything in Ocaml bindings? http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#whatsnew does not list any relevant features. 2.7 added 'operand' that can access each operand from a value. external operand : llvalue -> int -> llvalue = "llvm_operand" Does this binding also expose a primitive to return how many operands a given value has? I need

On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Jianzhou Zhao <jianzhou at seas.upenn.edu> wrote: > In the definition of 'monotonic' ordering, > ... "If an address is written monotonically by one thread, and other > threads monotonically read that address repeatedly, the other threads > must eventually see the write"... It's supposed to mean that if you have a something

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