similar to: [LLVMdev] Request for merge: GHC/ARM calling convention.

David, Thanks for that - I emailed Karel Gardas. I've got GHC successfully registerised on ARM, and I'm just starting on pushing it upstream. The reason why I'm avoiding the R0-R3 registers is mainly because my qemu-based ARM VM takes days to compile everything, and I was being conservative. The GHC code can call directly out to C, so it would need to save its own R0-R3 when it

Hi Steve, I'm not an LLVM developer but am the author/maintainer of the LLVM backend in GHC. The patch looks mostly good to me (although I am not that familiar with ARM so could easily have missed something). My main concern is why are you avoiding using the R0 - R3 registers? Also, could you please update me on the status of this work. I assume you are getting GHC running in registerised

Hi Duncan, > const unsigned* > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > + bool ghcCall = false; > + > + if (MF) { > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > + } > This bit looks dubious. Why do you need to do it? What exactly? We need

Hi Duncan, On 10/14/11 03:56 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> > const unsigned* >> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >> const { >> > + bool ghcCall = false; >> > + >> > + if (MF) { >> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() ==

Hi Karel, >>> > const unsigned* >>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>> const { >>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>> > + >>> > + if (MF) { >>> > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); >>> > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false);

Hi Karel, > > const unsigned* > > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) const { > > + bool ghcCall = false; > > + > > + if (MF) { > > + const Function *F = MF->getFunction(); > > + ghcCall = (F ? F->getCallingConv() == CallingConv::GHC : false); > > + } > > > This bit looks dubious. Why do you

OK, new patch attached. Hopefully in time for 2.7. Chris Lattner wrote: > 1) is the GHC calling conv intended to be target specific? If it is x86 specific, it should get an X86 prefix. If not, it should move up to be #10 after Cold. No its intended to be supported on any platforms that GHC is supported on, which is just x86 and SPARC at the moment. At the moment I've just done X86, will

On Mar 2, 2010, at 5:33 PM, David Terei wrote: > Hi all, > > As previously mentioned on this list the Haskell compiler GHC has a new LLVM based back-end. The back-end needs a new calling convention to efficiently use LLVM and that is what this patch does, just for X86 at the moment. Nice, > The GHC developers would love to get this included in LLVM so that we don't need to

Hi all, As previously mentioned on this list the Haskell compiler GHC has a new LLVM based back-end. The back-end needs a new calling convention to efficiently use LLVM and that is what this patch does, just for X86 at the moment. Breakdown: 1) Need actual calling convention Touches: - include/llvm/CallingConv.h - lib/Target/X86/X86CallingConv.td 2) Handling new calling

All, I would like to submit the attached patch, which allows the GHC (Glasgow Haskell Compiler) calling convention to work on ARM targets. Could some nice person please review this code, so I can move towards getting it committed? I have thoroughly tested this patch again GHC on a Debian-ARM (armel) system. Unfortunately my understanding of LLVM is limited, so it's likely I'm not

Hi Tim, On 01/ 8/14 10:24 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> I've observed the same issue with LLVM 3.4 as distributed by Ubuntu 13.10 >> and with LLVM HEAD compiled on January 6. I'm able to provide the byte-code >> file which results in this issue, but would first like to know if this is a >> known issue in AArch64 target support or if I shall submit

On 06/29/12 11:12 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 29 June 2012 17:46, Karel Gardas<karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: >> Yes and no. Shortly: original GHC/ARM/LLVM port was done by Stephen on >> ARMv5/Qemu IIRC. I've later added whole VFP support and ARMv7 support. The >> code in GHC is properly #ifdefed, so if there is no VFP available on pre >> ARMv6, then

Hi Duncan, Karel, On 14 October 2011 08:22, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Karel, > >>>> > const unsigned* >>>> > ARMBaseRegisterInfo::getCalleeSavedRegs(const MachineFunction *MF) >>>> const { >>>> > + bool ghcCall = false; >>>> > + >>>> > + if (MF) { >>>> > + const

On 29 June 2012 17:46, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > Yes and no. Shortly: original GHC/ARM/LLVM port was done by Stephen on > ARMv5/Qemu IIRC. I've later added whole VFP support and ARMv7 support. The > code in GHC is properly #ifdefed, so if there is no VFP available on pre > ARMv6, then it's not used. ie. GHC STG floating points regs are then >

Hi Renato, On 06/25/12 12:13 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi Karel, > > I understand this patch has already been merged (to 3.0), so don't > take my question as stopping the merge to head, I'm just making sure I > got it right... The rest looks correct. > > + CCIfType<[v2f64], CCAssignToReg<[Q4, Q5]>>, > + CCIfType<[f64], CCAssignToReg<[D8, D9,

On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:18 AM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > > Hello, > > first of all: one of the LLVM 3.0 new feature was a support for GHC specific calling convention on ARM platform. It looks like this support was merged just into 3.0 branch, specifically it appeared in 3.0 RC2. > Anyway, I hope this is just a mistake or omission that such support was

Hi David, > Any word on this making 3.0? 3.0 already branched, and since this is not a regression, this will most probably go into 3.1. Maybe Bill (CC'ed) being the release manager has other opinion on this. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

Hi Duncan, Any word on this making 3.0? Cheers, David On 16 October 2011 23:03, David Terei <davidterei at gmail.com> wrote: > On 15 October 2011 00:31, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> Hi David, >> >>> The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what >>> registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in

Hi David, > The code above is needed as the GHC calling convention redefines what > registers are considered callee save. No one else rummages in to the > original function as all the other calling conventions use the same > set of callee and caller save registers, so GHC is the only one that > needs to differentiate. shouldn't the caller also know what registers are callee

Hello, first of all: one of the LLVM 3.0 new feature was a support for GHC specific calling convention on ARM platform. It looks like this support was merged just into 3.0 branch, specifically it appeared in 3.0 RC2. Anyway, I hope this is just a mistake or omission that such support was merged only into 3.0 and not also into HEAD. I've just found it by testing LLVM 3.1 with GHC 7.4.2 and