similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-mc standalone assemblers and testing

On Jan 11, 2012, at 6:05 PM, Carter, Jack wrote: > I have had references to llvm-mc in terms of a tester for MC level code changes and have just found and read the blog http://blog.llvm.org/2010/04/intro-to-llvm-mc-project.html. > > Am I correct that lib/Target/<target>/AsmParser/*.cpp needs to be completed to make a standalone assembler for a specific target and until that is

We are already generating object directly. It is on my roadmap to implement the standalone assembler, but I was hoping for some suggestions ;-) My target is Mips and I have started looking at what ARM does. If there is a better model or how-to guide I'd like to know. Thanks, Jack ________________________________ From: Owen Anderson [resistor at mac.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012

ARM is the best model currently, though x86 does some interesting things as well and is worth looking at. If there's anything in particular that's causing head-scratching, just ask. There's not much available in terms of how-to documentation, unfortunately. That's definitely on my TODO list to write, but time constraints are rough right now. -Jim On Jan 11, 2012, at 8:09 PM,

Jim, What I am doing is modeling from ARM and X86 just enough to get "hello world" to produce correct ELF output. >From many years of experience I know this will leave me with little understanding of what is going on and I will need to have this understanding to really add long term value. Maybe my questions will help frame the how-to-and-why documentation. I think my first patch

I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser. Following the lead of X86, ARM and MBlaze I have run tblgen -gen-asm-matcher on Mips.td to produce tables and methods to aid the parser (MipsAsmParser.cpp) which is a stripped down ARM implementation. I am getting an assertion for what I believe are multiple register definitions with the same name. llvm-tblgen:

On Jan 31, 2012, at 1:26 PM, Carter, Jack wrote: > I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser. > > Following the lead of X86, ARM and MBlaze I have run tblgen -gen-asm-matcher on Mips.td to produce tables and methods to aid the parser (MipsAsmParser.cpp) which is a stripped down ARM implementation. > > I am getting an assertion for what I believe are

Hi Jack, You're running into a fundamental problem with the current table generated asmmatcher. Specifically, wants to believe that assembly parsing is context insensitive, or at least close enough that operands can be parsed w/o knowing the context of the instruction. Its idea is to use the operand types to disambiguate which instruction should be selected. It sounds like MIPS 64vs.32 does

Jim, You are correct: MipsSubtarget. For llvm-mc we have a straight MCSubtargetInfo object. For llc we get a MipsSubtarget object which derives from MipsGenSubtargetInfo which derives from TargetSubtargetInfo which derives from MCSubtargetInfo. The patch I hope to send out for review will do this: Add a new data member to MCSubtargetInfo base class. It will be a set of integers that is used or

On Dec 10, 2012, at 1:15 PM, "Carter, Jack" <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Here are some examples using the gnu assembler reacting to the same input file with different commandline options. > > These are using the GCC assembler on hello.c > // abi o32, arch mips32r2, relocation model pic+cpic > mips-linux-gnu-as -mips32r2 -EL -KPIC -o hello_gas.o hello_gas.s >

Here are some examples using the gnu assembler reacting to the same input file with different commandline options. These are using the GCC assembler on hello.c // abi o32, arch mips32r2, relocation model pic+cpic mips-linux-gnu-as -mips32r2 -EL -KPIC -o hello_gas.o hello_gas.s e_flags 0x70001007 EF_MIPS_NOREORDER EF_MIPS_PIC EF_MIPS_CPIC E_MIPS_ABI_O32 EF_MIPS_ARCH_32R2 // abi

Has anyone converted llvm/projects/test-suite to use the llvm assembler instead of gcc? If so, what was needed to change and how? My assumption is that this would be a good way to test the llvm assembler. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121015/a91a495f/attachment.html>

Let me see if I understand the response ;-) When you are saying integrated assembler do you mean llc --filetype=obj? If so, we currently have that for an option when running the test-suite. When you say that to test the llvm-mc assembler for your target you don't substitute the gcc assembler invocation for llvm-mc which would expect the resultant executable run to pass. Instead you have to

Yes, absolutely. There's two pieces of this that are handy. First, checking the normal integrated-assembler code path. That doesn't check the actual assembler, but rather the binary encoder and object file emitter. To test that, I did runs with a locally modified clang that enabled the integrated assembler by default for my target (ARM/Darwin at the time). The second piece is checking the

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Has anyone converted llvm/projects/test-suite to use the llvm assembler > instead of gcc? > > If so, what was needed to change and how? > > My assumption is that this would be a good way to test the llvm assembler. > Not quite sure what you mean, as far as I know there isn't any assembler

On 6 December 2012 17:49, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Older targets like Mips had/have assemblers and ABIs that carry a lot of > baggage. > > The small bit of baggage that is giving me fits is that MipsELFObjectWriter > needs to know the relocation model (static,pic,cpic), whether we are using > xgot (-mgot), which abi (old,new), which architecture

Hi Rafael, There are a lot of flags. Here are the ones you ask about: -KPIC, -call_shared generate SVR4 position independent code -call_nonpic generate non-PIC code that can operate with DSOs -mvxworks-pic generate VxWorks position independent code -non_shared do not generate code that can operate with DSOs -xgot assume a 32 bit GOT Just to make things fun, the SGI notion of cpic (call pic)

Older targets like Mips had/have assemblers and ABIs that carry a lot of baggage. The small bit of baggage that is giving me fits is that MipsELFObjectWriter needs to know the relocation model (static,pic,cpic), whether we are using xgot (-mgot), which abi (old,new), which architecture (32r[123],64[123]), which if any coprocessor or extention instructions are used (mips16,micromips,etc.). I

On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 1:03 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Eli, > > This is the kind of feedback I want. I believe I have to add to the base class so it should be generally useful. I can see string being better for the value. I still am enamoured with an enumeration for the tab though: int->string. How would that be a limitation? > I guess that's fine,

Hi, developers, I notice following asm symbol definitions are eveluated improperly: A = 9 B = 3*A - 2 * A + 1 the value of B should be 10 instead of 8. It seems asm parser treat "B = 3*A - 2 * A + 1" as "B = 3*A - (2 * A + 1)" because the second "*" has higher precedence than "-", and evaluation just performs simple recursion within

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Attached are the promised patches for the below proposed change. > Just a quick question from an initial review: isn't the int->bool mapping of flags a bit limiting. Flag can have actual values and not only be there or not be there. Wouldn't a more generic mapping (string->string ?) be more