similar to: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends

----- Original Message ----- > From: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com> > To: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com>; LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Cc: > Sent: Friday, June 3, 2011 6:52 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Most JVMs perform terribly. Even Sun's has had notable performance

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2011 14:44:05 -0400 From: Nate Fries <nfries88 at yahoo.com> To: Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> On 6/3/2011 1:38 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Am 01.06.2011 23:25, schrieb Nate Fries: >> That said, it seems like it ought to be possible to do

On 6/2/2011 10:13 AM, Samuel Crow wrote: > Hi Nate, > > I've successfully ported one bitcode from Linux to Mac to Windows. All were x86 and the program was text-based, but I'd say my LLVM Wrapper would be worth some effort in the future if I could just get some help. Currently it just wraps StdIO.h with its own functions Naturally that would work perfectly fine on a similar

Hi Nate, I've successfully ported one bitcode from Linux to Mac to Windows.  All were x86 and the program was text-based, but I'd say my LLVM Wrapper would be worth some effort in the future if I could just get some help.  Currently it just wraps StdIO.h with its own functions. Here's some of what it would take to make portable bitcodes in C or LLVM Assembly: * Convert all

Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> writes: > Here's some of what it would take to make portable bitcodes in C or LLVM Assembly: A look at the work done on ANDF in the 90's may be helpful. I've only skimmed it but there's been some deep thinking about stuff like this. -Dave

Cameron Zwarich wrote: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? The same thing as an interpreter, just a native build (no need for an interpreter program, better speed, etc). This would be beneficial anywhere that "build once, deploy anywhere" functionality is desired, without resorting to using a higher-level language like C# or

Am 01.06.2011 04:57, schrieb Cameron Zwarich: > What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? A backend that's self-sufficient and covers the entire Unixoid world. That cuts down on the number of binaries that one needs to provide for autoinstallers and such. Generated Perl could be used to bootstrap an LLVM IR interpreter, for example.

I've been tossing around some ideas about high-level backends. Say, have LLVM emit Perl code. Sounds whacky but isn't. It's good for the first bootstrapping phase in environments where you don't have a C compiler, where you don't have a cross-compiled binary for download, but you can execute Perl. It also makes a great inspect-the-sources-with-an-editor stage for aspiring

Sorry, forgot to CC the list. ----- Forwarded Message ----- > From: Samuel Crow <samuraileumas at yahoo.com> > To: Joachim Durchholz <jo at durchholz.org> > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 9:35 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Thinking about "whacky" backends > > Hello, > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Joachim Durchholz

On May 31, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Samuel Crow wrote: <snip> >> >> Now my idea for a whacky backend: Just a wrapper of the bitcode writer with its >> own special target triple: bitcode-tarrget-neutral and a generic data layout >> that aligns to single bytes as a placeholder only. It should disallow >> overriding the alignment of individual instructions to avoid

Am 01.06.2011 23:25, schrieb Nate Fries: > That said, it seems like it ought to be possible to do the same thing > by emitting bitcode for all supported platform/arch combinations Wait... is bitcode not platform-agnostic? I thought it is. > and > compressing them in an archive, then decompressing and either > interpreting or JIT-compiling the appropriate bitcode for the >

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Henry Mason <thefridgeowl at gmail.com> wrote: > This is pretty much what's happening with Portable Native Client, right? > > http://www.chromium.org/nativeclient/pnacl > > See also the first presentation from the November LLVM meeting: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2010-11/ PNaCl fixes data layout to be just "portable enough" to cover

What benefit do you get from having a backend here rather than an interpreter for LLVM IR? Cameron On May 31, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > I've been tossing around some ideas about high-level backends. > > Say, have LLVM emit Perl code. > > Sounds whacky but isn't. It's good for the first bootstrapping phase in > environments where you don't

On 6/3/2011 3:19 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >>>> compressing them in an archive, then decompressing and either >>>> interpreting or JIT-compiling the appropriate bitcode for the >>>> platform. This would just be a more flexible means to that same end. >>> Not sure how that is more flexible - care to elaborate? >> More flexible to the programmer,

Check this out. I recently closed a bug I had written, #495 "ExtraChannel in transfer causes crash" Now I've been able to reproduce it, and somewhat narrowed down the culprit. But before I write another bug report, I wanted to see if anyone else had experienced the following (or would like to try:) When DNS (or outside connection to the network, not sure which) is broken and

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=94225 Bug ID: 94225 Summary: Mesa crash with "nouveau" driver and Minetest Product: Mesa Version: 10.2 Hardware: Other OS: All Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: medium Component: Drivers/DRI/nouveau Assignee: nouveau

Does anyone know if this is a known xfail? I'm getting a failure for Mips on this but at the same time, ecmascript.y gets errors when running it through lemon for both gccx86 and llvm mips so I don't know if the output is supposed to really compare or not. (This test runs lemon on multiple input files and computes a hash of the result and diffs the hash). All inputs that are not

On Jul 25, 2011, at 10:58 PM, Talin wrote: > To handle the fact that types do not (and can not, at least as long as we intend to support obscure languages like "C" :) have linkage, the the linker uses a "best effort" approach. It attempts to merge types and rewrite IR to use the merged types where it can, but it doesn't make any guarantees. > > I want to add an

I'm trying to track down the problem with the assertion failure in SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp. This is the code: *case* *Intrinsic*::gcroot: *if* (GFI) { *const* Value *Alloca = I.getArgOperand(0); *const* Constant *TypeMap = cast<Constant>(I.getArgOperand(1)); * FrameIndexSDNode *FI = cast<FrameIndexSDNode>(getValue(Alloca).getNode());*

On Apr 7, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Talin wrote: > > OK I've been checking this out some more, and the DIEs don't look valid to me. Take a look at this output from dwarfdump -v: > > 0x000000c7: TAG_subprogram [3] > 0x000000c8: AT_name( .debug_str[0x000001bd] = "construct" ) > 0x000000cc: AT_MIPS_linkage_name( .debug_str[0x000001c7] =