similar to: [LLVMdev] bitcode vs native code

On 12/14/2013 04:06 AM, sebald.ziegler.maillist at ikolus.de wrote: > On Friday, December 13, 2013 23:15:45 reed kotler wrote: >> Has anyone done any comparisons of bitcode vs native code (.o) in terms >> of size? >> >> TIA. >> >> Reed >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>

On Friday, December 13, 2013 23:15:45 reed kotler wrote: > Has anyone done any comparisons of bitcode vs native code (.o) in terms > of size? > > TIA. > > Reed > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev maybe

Hallo. I wanted to use the DSA from the poolalloc project as a starting point for static C code analysis (for me it has some benefits to work on LLVM-IR (generated by clang) instead of C code). Currently there is no poolalloc version 3.3. Therefore I wrote a quick patch to make poolalloc 3.2 compile with llvm 3.3 (mostly adaptions to file relocations were necessary). The patch is attached as

Kewl Beans! You're heading right where I need LLVM to go :) Details ... On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 07:22, John Criswell wrote: > Funny you should mention that; getting a C library compiled to LLVM > code is one of the tasks on my plate. :) Good. If I can help, please let me know. > You are correct that the LLVM assembly language cannot accept native > assembly instructions

On 03/19/2015 09:57 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

Well, you are an mclinker contributor and Google uses mclinker and now it's broken as the result of your change. I still don't see any justification to making a change in a public interface that is used by other non LLVM projects to fix some issue with clang warnings. People should be able to derive from those classes. I can't understand your reasoning as to why these classes must

On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > Well, you are an mclinker contributor > > > Me personally? Not that I know of. Sorry. I thought i had seen your name in an mclinker commit. > > and Google uses mclinker >

I understand that but falling back makes the compilation slower. I'm wondering what could be done to remove this restriction about fast-isel not being able to handle non legal types. ________________________________________ From: Anton Korobeynikov [anton at korobeynikov.info] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:55 AM To: Reed Kotler Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] lowering

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

Let me add to one point that Misha made (just to show I actually read these messages!)... >> >> Any ballpark ideas on when an alpha version could be available? Are we >> talking months or years here? > > First of all, I would like to point out that the goal is *NOT* to > compile Linux > to run natively on your favorite architecture; instead, we aim to > compile

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >

Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an immutable pass. Not sure how to reconcile this with fact that there will be different answers needed depending on the subtarget. Seems like BasicTansformInfoClass should become a function pass that does not modify anything. On 03/22/2013 09:43 AM, Reed Kotler wrote: > Another way to do this would to be to have a reset virtual function >

On 04/02/2013 03:31 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > On 04/02/2013 03:00 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> How do you add a target dependent transform pass? >> >> tia. >> >> eed > > I need to add a module pass. Do you need to just add them to the Transform subdirectory????

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

I would like to make the following member of AsmPrinter be protected void EmitInlineAsm(StringRef Str, const MDNode *LocMDNode = 0, InlineAsm::AsmDialect AsmDialect = InlineAsm::AD_ATT) const; I have some stubs that I want to emit in MipsAsmParser . Are there any objections to doing this? Reed

One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by how it's using this class but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a subjective opinion that mclinker needs to be changed. I think that "final" was added to some of these command line classes to avoid some kind of clang warning. That seems wrong to me that the tools are dictating

Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. Reed On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed

Hi Reed, We will need to reconstruct the target machine and the TTI chain when the function attributes change. We currently don't have code for doing that but I suggest that you talk with Bill Wendling about the best way to implement this. Thanks, Nadav On Mar 22, 2013, at 11:30 AM, Reed Kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Just realized that BasicTransformInfoClass is an