similar to: [LLVMdev] PIC16 removal details

On Sep 21, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Matthew Hilt wrote: > >> I've been looking closely at LLVM as a means to developing a new toolchain for an MCU core of very similar architecture. To that end, the once included PIC16 backend might be a valuable reference. I found a message in April of this year that indicated it had been dropped from

On Sep 20, 2011, at 10:59 PM, Matthew Hilt wrote: > I've been looking closely at LLVM as a means to developing a new toolchain for an MCU core of very similar architecture. To that end, the once included PIC16 backend might be a valuable reference. I found a message in April of this year that indicated it had been dropped from new releases however, and that were it to be resumed "it

The target in this case is 8-bit, accumulator based, however it is Von Neumann; so - good to know it's not *quite* the "Trifecta of Doom". LLVM offers some very attractive features for our usage, and it would be disappointing to abandon it as an option all together. Faced with the alternative being to write the compiler from scratch, is the consensus that doing so will be a better

On Sep 21, 2011, at 4:51 PM, Matthew Hilt wrote: > The target in this case is 8-bit, accumulator based, however it is Von Neumann; so - good to know it's not *quite* the "Trifecta of Doom". LLVM offers some very attractive features for our usage, and it would be disappointing to abandon it as an option all together. Faced with the alternative being to write the compiler from

It is really cool that LLVM has a backend for PIC now. I wonder if someone could comment on the suitability of LLVM for 8-bit and 16-bit MCUs? Is there significant impedance mismatch or is it relatively easy to get good object code for these platforms? (I.e. roughly comparable to gcc4?) I ask since gcc is causing significant pain for one of my students. He could switch over to LLVM but

Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter implementation to be in a subdirectory like the rest of the other targets (e.g. make it live in lib/Target/PIC16/AsmPrinter). Anton is planning to move MSP430 to use the same approach. Having all the targets use the same design simplifies the build system and keeps the target architecture more

In my ongoing work on refactoring the asmprinters, I've found that PIC16 doesn't put ':' after labels in some cases. Specifically, it looks like basic block labels are emitted without a ':': movwf @__floatunsidf.frame. + 2 movlp .BB1_2 goto .BB1_2 .BB1_2 ; %bb7 movlw 0 banksel @__floatunsidf.frame. but that

There is a ~/llvm-2.8/lib/Target/PIC16/ backend in llvm-2.8. It doesn't appear to be present in llvm-2.9. Has that backend been dropped? Graham

Mikhail Glushenkov wrote: > Hi Sanjiv, > > 2009/6/29 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > >> I want to retrieve the value of argv[0] (which was passed to main function >> of the driver) in PrependCustomizedPath. >> > > I've added a way to access argv[0] in hooks: > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.cvs/50789 >

Hi Sanjiv, 2009/6/30 Sanjiv Gupta <sanjiv.gupta at microchip.com>: > One more thing: > How to make --save-temps always on, so that users won't have to specify it > every time they invoke the driver? Either always run the driver via an alias, or edit lib/CompilerDriver/BuiltinOptions.cpp: cl::opt<SaveTempsEnum::Values> SaveTemps ("save-temps",

The driver behaves differently when I run it by specifying absolute path than when I run it with relative path. See example Relative: i00202 at ubuntu:/tmp$ mcc16 --save-temps -dry-run hello.c./clang-cc -I ./include -triple=pic16- -emit-llvm-bc hello.c -o hello.bc-pqDR1Y llvm-ld -link-as-library hello.bc-pqDR1Y -o tmp.bc-M1Rwip llc -march=pic16 -f tmp.bc-M1Rwip -o tmp.s-DcVczP gpasm -I ./inc

Hi Duncan, We are targetting a reasonably functional PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5. The only problem in our way is a local patch in ExpandIntegerOperand, which couldn't make its way to trunk so far. The discussion is contained in the following link: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081103/069593.html I now have time to take it up again and do whatever rework is

Chris Lattner wrote: > Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, > > I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter > implementation to be in a subdirectory like the rest of the other > targets (e.g. make it live in lib/Target/PIC16/AsmPrinter). > Hi Chris, I'll try to get this done either this weekend or early next week. -- Richard Osborne | XMOS

> Chris Lattner wrote: > >> Hi XCore and PIC16 maintainers, >> >> I'd appreciate it if you guys could move your AsmPrinter >> implementation to be in a subdirectory like the rest of the other >> targets (e.g. make it live in lib/Target/PIC16/AsmPrinter). >> I've moved the XCore AsmPrinter in r79094:

Chris Lattner wrote: > In my ongoing work on refactoring the asmprinters, I've found that > PIC16 doesn't put ':' after labels in some cases. Specifically, it > looks like basic block labels are emitted without a ':': > > movwf @__floatunsidf.frame. + 2 > movlp .BB1_2 > goto .BB1_2 > .BB1_2

On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Graham Reitz <grahamreitz at me.com> wrote: > There is a ~/llvm-2.8/lib/Target/PIC16/ backend in llvm-2.8.  It doesn't appear to be present in llvm-2.9. > > Has that backend been dropped? Yes; commit message for r116190: "Per discussion with Sanjiv, remove the PIC16 target from mainline. When/if it comes back, it will be largely a rewrite,

Hi Sanjiv, > We are targetting a reasonably functional PIC16 backend for llvm 2.5. > The only problem in our way is a local patch in ExpandIntegerOperand, which couldn't make its way to trunk so far. The discussion is contained in the following link: > > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20081103/069593.html > > I now have time to take it up

On Aug 12, 2009, at 9:48 PM, Sanjiv.Gupta at microchip.com wrote: > Chris, > I will try to get it done before 2.6. (8/21). > Thanks Sanjiv! One other nice cleanup (but which is not time critical at all) would be to merge the contents of "PIC16Section" into the new "MCSectionPIC16" class. Unlike the previous design, you're now allowed to store arbitrary

> Function pointers are where things get fun. To do these, we need to > determine at run time whether we need to call the ISR or the mainline > version of a function This sounds convenient but it may well be overkill. On a PIC-class platform we can probably consider it to be a design flaw if the programmer doesn't know whether a function pointer will be dereferenced from interrupt

Bringing it up again. - Sanjiv Sanjiv Gupta wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> We should discuss this on llvmdev, I think it came up before but there >> was no conclusive plan that was proposed. >> > The approach that we thought for PIC16 can be described in a > single line as below. > > "Keep the functions called from ISR and main separate by