similar to: [LLVMdev] Require Grammar for converting C to IR

On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Vijay Daultani <vijay.daultani at gmail.com>wrote: > Respected Sir/Madam, > > As I was developing some part of compiler for a project. I require grammar > (BNF or EBNF) for converting the C code in the IR as it is not been > mentioned any where over your official website. > > Awaiting for your help. > > Hi Vijay, If you are asking

Vijay Daultani wrote: > Respected Sir/Madam, > > As I was developing some part of compiler for a project. I require grammar > (BNF or EBNF) for converting the C code in the IR as it is not been > mentioned any where over your official website. I don't know what you mean by "converting the C code in the IR". Regardless, LLVM does not have BNF or EBNF forms (or any

I am curious how do you guys do it anyways? On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote: > Vijay Daultani wrote: > >> Respected Sir/Madam, >> >> As I was developing some part of compiler for a project. I require grammar >> (BNF or EBNF) for converting the C code in the IR as it is not been >> mentioned any where over your

Seems that Vijay is asking about converting C program to LLVM IR On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:26 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:02 AM, Vijay Daultani <vijay.daultani at gmail.com>wrote: > >> Respected Sir/Madam, >> >> As I was developing some part of compiler for a project. I require grammar >>

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Devchandra L Meetei > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Require Grammar for converting C to IR > > If you are asking about compiling C into LLVM IR - take a look at Clang: > > http://clang.llvm.org/. Clang is a C, C++ and ObjC front-end for LLVM. > Seems that Vijay is asking about

On Sep 5, 2013, at 3:37 AM, gamma_chen <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > LLVM only support primitive type i32 and i64, no i48. The clang translate "C int type" to i32 too. My question is if a cpu is 48 bits register size, how to write the backend for 48 bits register architecture. Can someone help me with this problem? I'm not LLVM expert, but I'm pretty sure your

Hi, LLVM only support primitive type i32 and i64, no i48. The clang translate "C int type" to i32 too. My question is if a cpu is 48 bits register size, how to write the backend for 48 bits register architecture. Can someone help me with this problem? Jonathan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello Tim, Thank you for getting back to me. The language grammar as defined by the LLVM Language Reference Manual [1] does not include the details of the LLVM IR parser reference implementation. The following extract from "lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp" illustrates that unnamed globals are allowed [2]. > /// ParseUnnamedGlobal: > /// OptionalVisibility (ALIAS | IFUNC) ...

On 25 May 2016 at 16:10, Robin Eklind via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > declare void @foo() unnamed_addr > global i32 42 Doesn't a global have to be named? The syntax in the IR reference doesn't make it optional: @<GlobalVarName> = [Linkage] [Visibility] [DLLStorageClass] [ThreadLocal] ... Cheers. Tim.

Hello everyone, While developing a parser for LLVM IR, I seem to have stumbled upon a potential ambiguity in the LLVM IR assembly language grammar. Most likely there is something which I may have overlooked, so wanted to reach out to a more experienced crowed for some feedback. How would the following set of tokens be interpreted [1]? declare void @foo() unnamed_addr global i32 42 As far as

Hi, all, very interested to ask if any one knows that there is a BNF like grammar to describe LLVM IR? Thanks, -jenny -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110102/b1eddac5/attachment.html>

On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 1:40 PM David Greene via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > > > But perhaps more importantly, as Hal states clearly, is the need for > > an official specification, similar to the one for LLVM IR, as well as > > a formal document with the expected semantics into

On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 1:54 PM David Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com> writes: > > > Of course by its nature, MLIR doesn't lend itself to concrete semantic > >> descriptions, though I would expect the affine dialect (and others) to > >> have documentation on par with the LLVM IR. > > > > >

On Feb 3, 2013, at 10:45 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >> Executive Summary: >> >> The new syntax is: >> >> #0 = attributes { noinline align=4 "cpu"="cortex-a8" } >> #1 = attributes { attr = (val1 val2 val3) } >>

Hi! The rewrite of the attributes class is well underway. The next step is to add support for the expanded rôle of attributes in the language and IR. This is the final proposal for the language changes. There isn't a lot of new information except for the syntax changes for the new feature. Executive Summary: The new syntax is: #0 = attributes { noinline align=4

A long time ago, when I devised the grammar and structure of the Microsoft C++ name mangling scheme (decorated names), the document describing the object model and the name decoration scheme were made publically available. Perhaps this is still available publically, or perhaps Microsoft might be willing to share an up to date definition of the name-decoration grammar, especially in light of the

I need to write some documentation: I'm looking for a standard, consistent way of referring to the components and attributes of R data structures. Googling and Stackoverflow yield a variety of github sites that do not seem to be particularly authoritative. I was hoping to find a BNF/ABNF grammar for R. I've looked at the output of bison -v ./R-3.6.2/src/main/gram.y but it does not

On Jan 29, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: > Executive Summary: > > The new syntax is: > > #0 = attributes { noinline align=4 "cpu"="cortex-a8" } > #1 = attributes { attr = (val1 val2 val3) } > #bork = attributes { sspreq noredzone } > > define void @foo() #0 #bork { ret void } The general syntax LGTM. It

Hi folks, TableGen provides sufficiently rich syntax for expressing target instruction set. Nevertheless, when I wrote the PTX backend, I observed that some redundancy in TableGen can be further eliminated through macro expansion of for-loops. The semantics of a for-loop is expanding the for-loop body, and so it is equivalent to manually unroll the loop (see example #1). I believe the for-loop

On Feb 3, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Bill Wending <isanbard at gmail.com> wrote: >>> The 'align' and "cpu" attributes both have a value associated with them. The 'attr' attribute in '#1' has multiple values associated with it. (The BNF is below in the 'IR Changes' section.) Attribute groups with the same attributes in them, but in a different order,