similar to: [LLVMdev] Lowering Call Return

On 9/4/2012 11:16 AM, Khaled Mohammed wrote: > > Is there an option to do sret demotion via a register? if yes, do we > have a Target to see an example implementation? Hi Khaled, Check out X86TargetLowering::LowerReturn, and the call to getSRetReturnReg. The SRetReturnReg looks like a hack (each target that uses it, declares this variable individually), but that seems to be the

How about vector parameters? define internal fastcc <4 x float> @add(<4 x float> %a.val, <4 x float> %b.val) nounwind { entry: %tmp4 = fadd <4 x float> %a.val, %b.val ret <4 x float> %tmp4 } a and b are flattened by SelectionDAGISel::LowerArguments(const BasicBlock *LLVMBB) before letting the target handle it. SDValue NewRoot =

On 3 December 2012 10:42, Mayur Pandey <mayurthebond at gmail.com> wrote: > So this seems to be the cause of the problem. I guess you're mixing two different problems. First, is the possible lack of conformance with the ABI you state, which I can't comment since I don't know that ABI very well. Second, is the fact that clang is not printing correct debug information (or is

Hi All, In the target we are implementing, function return for i64 and f64 types has a different processing. For types i8 to i32, and f32, the return values are stored in their designated return registers (like how other targets does it). For i64 and f64 types, in the function call, after pushing the function parameters into the stack, the address of the allocated return memory space is

Hi, After removing support for the i64 type in the *CallingConv.td, sret-demotion is performed and we now have a store<(store 8, align 1)> DAG node being generated. Please refer to the attached dag_funcret.pdf DAG visualization. My understanding is that, the second operand(CopyFromReg->Register %1, Register %0 back-up) in the store node is the memory location allocated for the i64 type

On 9/5/2012 5:02 PM, Khaled Mohammed wrote: > How about vector parameters? > > define internal fastcc <4 x float> @add(<4 x float> %a.val, <4 x float> > %b.val) nounwind { > entry: > %tmp4 = fadd <4 x float> %a.val, %b.val > ret <4 x float> %tmp4 > } That I don't know, but I'd look around TargetCallingConv.td,

Hi llvm-dev, >> The CopyFromReg->CopyToReg->CopyFromReg sequence doesn’t have the chains set correctly: the second CopyFromReg’s input chain isn’t connected to the CopyToReg’s output chain. (This appears to be the same problem in both graphs.) The DAG mentioned was generated by the SelectionDAGBuilder and as much as possible, we only modify the files within our target so I tried

Hi LLVM developers, Thank Daniel Sanders, Aditya Nandakumar and Justin Bogner's Tutorial[1]: Head First into GlobalISel about how to port, and Aditya took BPF target as a simple instance: bool BPFCallLowering::lowerReturn(MachineIRBuilder &MIRBuilder,                                   const Value *Val, unsigned VReg) const {   assert(!Val == !VReg && "Return value

> I recently made a major reorganization of the calling-convention > lowering code which cleared away one of the major obstacles to > doing this within codegen. > > Dan So what was the obstacle, and how was it cleared? And how do you see the large struct return working in codegen? Anything you care to tell me would be welcome. I will be starting on this today or tomorrow.

Hello, Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets, and to facilitate future refactoring and feature work.

On Sep 16, 2009, at 5:58 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote: >> I recently made a major reorganization of the calling-convention >> lowering code which cleared away one of the major obstacles to >> doing this within codegen. >> >> Dan > > So what was the obstacle, and how was it cleared? The biggest obstacle is that there used to be two different methods for lowering

Hello all, I am new to this list and hopefully I am at the right place. Firstly, thanks to everyone involved in this project. You do a great job! Now, I use "net" to join Windows AD domains and was wondering where I can find out more information on what happens during a "net ads testjoin". The information I found on the documentation pages of net or smb.conf on the website

Hi, Dan > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets, and to > facilitate future refactoring and feature work. I quickly looked over the patch and it seems to be a significant cleanup of all really ugly lowering code! Maybe it will be possible to provide some dummy implementation of LowerFormalArguments /

> > SNIP > > Is there anyone who can help with this question? prism# net ads testjoin Join is OK That's about it. Pretty simple. > > > > Regards, > Khaled > > 2010/4/30 Khaled Blah <khaled.blah at googlemail.com>: >> >> Can anyone give me any hints please? I've read the man pages for >> smb.conf and for net and then I read the

Hello, I would like to know whether it is possible to select (a) specific IP(s) for a "net ads dns register" call. The reason for my question is that we have setups with several interfaces, a few of which are "internal" interfaces but technically they're ethernet interfaces. Adding all those internal interfaces to a Windows AD server leads to the DNS server giving out the

Dears Any one knows a standalone voip transcoder software name,not an ip pbx. What I want is to transcode the incoming sip calls from g711 to g723 or ilbc or g729 ..... and forward it to a media gateway .. Regards Khaled chehab ********************************************* No employee or agent is authorized to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of Xplorium with another party by

That code should do it, but I realized you only detect setjmp functions by name. My code is calling "__sigsetjmp" not "segsetjmp". You only support these functions: static const char *ReturnsTwiceFns[] = { "_setjmp", "setjmp", "sigsetjmp", "setjmp_syscall", "savectx", "qsetjmp",

On Oct 4, 2011, at 3:53 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Khaled ElWazeer > <khalid.alwazeer at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I have some code which has sigsetjmp / longjmp. After a longjmp, unreachable >> is inserted, which is fine. The problem is that in the backend before >> calling longjmp, some register was spilled to a

Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > Attached is a patch which significantly reworks how calls, incoming > arguments, and outgoing return values are lowered. It's a major change, > affecting all targets, so I'm looking for feedback on the approach. > > The goal of the patch is to eliminate a bunch of awkward code, > eliminate some unnecessary differences between targets,

Hello, I just started playing with RubyOnRails. It is indeed fascinating! I have a question about using rails models to connect to backend Java (i.e. EJBs) instead of database. Any pointers will be appreciated. Thanks and Regards, Khaled -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.