similar to: [LLVMdev] How are system calls made?

On 5/16/11 10:30 PM, Hans Stimer wrote: > How do you do this in LLVM? > > open: > push dword mode > push dword flags > push dword path > mov eax, 5 > push eax ; Or any other dword > int 80h > add esp, byte 16 Same as in C: either with inline assembly, or by calling syscall(2). Chip

Do you inline assembly with the "module asm" instruction? On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 9:34 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>wrote: > On 5/16/11 10:30 PM, Hans Stimer wrote: > > How do you do this in LLVM? > > > > open: > > push dword mode > > push dword flags > > push dword path > > mov eax, 5 >

I submitted the problem report to clang's bugzilla but no one seems to care so I have to send it to the mailing list. clang 3.7 svn (trunk 229055 as the time I was to report this problem) generates slower code than 3.5 (Apple LLVM version 6.0 (clang-600.0.56) (based on LLVM 3.5svn)) for the following code. It is a "8 queens puzzle" solver written as an educational example. As

The regressions in the performance of generated code, introduced by the llvm 3.6 release, don't seem to be limited to this 8 queens puzzle" solver test case. See... http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=llvm-clang-3.5-3.6-rc1&num=1 where a bit hit in the performance of the Sparse Matrix Multiply test of the SciMark v2.0 benchmark was observed as well as others.

Using the SciMark 2.0 code from http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/scimark2_1c.zip compiled with the same... make CFLAGS="-O3 -march=native" I am able to reproduce the 22% performance regression in the run time of the Sparse matmult benchmark. For 10 runs of the scimark2 benechmark, I get 998.439+/-0.4828 with the release llvm clang 3.5.1 compiler and 1217.363+/-1.1004 for the current

In the case I posted I had removed that line, however, you still get the __3F_ in the generated assembly with it. Sent from my iPhone On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:15 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > > On Nov 25, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Michael Spencer wrote: > >> So I was taking a look at Microsoft C++ ABI support while on vacation, >> and ran into a major

Here's the other of my proposals for this year's Google Summer of Code. (The first is on cfe-dev.) It was suggested to me by Dan Kegel (from the Wine project, they really want this). Title: Microsoft Direct3D shader bytecode backend Abstract: There is a distinct lack of open-source frameworks for compiling HLSL, the shader language used by Direct3D, into bytecode that D3D can

On Nov 25, 2011, at 2:22 PM, bigcheesegs at gmail.com wrote: > In the case I posted I had removed that line, however, you still get the __3F_ in the generated assembly with it. Huh. It only seems to happen with a Windows triple or a Linux triple. Doesn't happen with a Mac triple, though--probably because the Darwin assembler supports quoted symbols (i.e. you can enclose an identifier in

Le 21 juin 2012 à 11:34, Manuel Klimek a écrit : > On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around?

On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that don't have a recent enough cmake in their most recent release, or maybe are using some features from configure+make that

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>wrote: > Here's the other of my proposals for this year's Google Summer of Code. > (The first is on cfe-dev.) It was suggested to me by Dan Kegel (from the > Wine project, they really want this). > > Title: Microsoft Direct3D shader bytecode backend > > Abstract: > > There is a

Here's my SoC 2010 proposal. I submitted it a long time ago (last week, to be precise), but didn't post it to the list. You can review it here: http://socghop.appspot.com/gsoc/student_proposal/show/google/gsoc2010/cdavis/t127000394358 Chip

On 3/29/11 5:14 AM, Justin Holewinski wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 9:22 PM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu > <mailto:cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>> wrote: > > Here's the other of my proposals for this year's Google Summer of Code. > (The first is on cfe-dev.) It was suggested to me by Dan Kegel (from the > Wine project, they really

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu>wrote: > > On Jun 20, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > >> Is there anybody who is certain that our autoconf dependency needs to >> stay around? Are there developers stuck on systems that

On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 5:21 AM, Charles Davis <cdavis at mymail.mines.edu> wrote: > You can link your bitcode together with glibc's bitcode by using the > llvm-link utility. Then you can run DCE over the bitcode with "opt -dce" > and cull all the functions you don't need. Right, that's still a reasonably straightforward solution for C... I think what I'm

Hi, I'm using LLVM to convert expressions to native assembly, the problem is when LLVM compiles this code: define void @fn_0000000000000000(i8*, i8*, i8*) { bb: %res = alloca i32 %3 = load i32* %res %4 = bitcast i8* %0 to i32* %5 = load i32* %4 %6 = bitcast i8* %0 to i32* %7 = load i32* %6 %8 = xor i32 %5, %7 store volatile i32 %8, i32* %res %9 = load i32* %res %10 = icmp

On 4/16/10 12:17 AM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Pranav Garg wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am generating the .bc file using the following command >> >> $ llvm-gcc -emit-llvm -S -o pointer.bc ../../../test/pointer.c >> >> But when I run any pass using opt it gives the following error : >> $ ./opt -basicaa pointer.bc >> ./opt: Bitcode stream should be a

On 4/27/10 9:54 AM, Swiss Guy wrote: > > Thanks for your really fast answer. > > I understood that, but this means that the llvm+Clang suite is not able to > create a machine binary file without any intervention of GCC ? Not yet. We're working on it, though: http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html

Does test-suite work with clang, or do I still need llvm-gcc?

On 10/17/10 3:28 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: > Does test-suite work with clang, or do I still need llvm-gcc? It works with Clang. The buildbots run it with clang all the time. Chip