similar to: [LLVMdev] most optimised and lowest level IR before machine codegen?

Short version: If the integrated assembler accepted assembly strings as input, more targets could take advantage of integrated assembly. The longer version: For a given assembly statement, my out-of-tree target has complex instruction selection logic -- more so than the in-tree targets. This target uses variable length instructions and a laborious hierarchy of tblgen AsmOperands to do the job.

Hello, I am trying to insert a .byte/.word in the beginning of a specific LLVM IR instruction when it prints out in assembly (the inserted ‘instruction' only appears in assembly, not in LLVM IR), and I am guessing the best way to do that is to insert it in SelectionDAG as it strips down some LLVM IR instructions when it’s lowered. Can I get some guidance on what function I should use to insert

Hello, I'm trying to understand the relationship between MachineMemOperand and, on X86, memory operands of machine instructions. The latter seem to be operands held in order by the MachineInstr, from an offset onwards - Base, Scale, Index, Displacement, Segment. The former, if I understand it correctly, is used to hold a relationship back to IR load/store instructions. Is it possible to have

Hello Mircea, > On 8 Mar 2018, at 18:52, Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > I'm trying to understand the relationship between MachineMemOperand and, on X86, memory operands of machine instructions. The latter seem to be operands held in order by the MachineInstr, from an offset onwards - Base, Scale, Index, Displacement,

Could you please expand a bit? Why are not the MCInstr and MachineInstr classes compatible? Is this not a long term goal, even? Could I make optimization passes in the MC layer with a disassembler as in a MachineFunction? Thanks, Jonas -----Original Message----- From: Eric Christopher [mailto:echristo at apple.com] Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 8:20 PM To: Jonas Paulsson Cc: LLVMDEV

Thanks for the details! How should we think of the case where an instruction has memory operands (in the sense that X86II::getMemoryOperandNo >=0), but doesn't have MachineMemOperands? I'm seeing an example in the case of __builtin_prefetch (lowered via SelectionDAG::getMemIntrinsicNode, which produces a MachineMemOperand) vs __builtin_ia32_gatherpfdpd, lowered through getPrefetchNode

Dear LLVM developers, My goal is to write LLVM Machine IR (MIR) passes to analyze the assembly source code. But it seems I need to find a way to translate the handwritten assembly code into MIR format first. Is there any materials, or any modules in LLVM source code, that can help to translate assembly code into LLVM MIR for analysis? Or is there any easier ways to analyze assembly code in MIR

Can someone explain what MCInst is vs. MachineIntr? I'm porting some patches we have here that affect MachineInstrs and am wondering whether I need to make similar changes in MCInst. Why do we have two machine instruction representations? -Dave

Doing some basic sanity checks on our Samba4 setup (migrating off of a Win2000/Win2003 AD) and the following command is throwing an error. Not sure how to troubleshoot this as most other things seem to be working. # samba-tool domain level show ERROR: Could not retrieve the actual domain, forest level and/or lowest DC function level! ... We are running the Sernet Samba package for Active

The functions that I placed in ScalarTargetTransformInfo are functions what were used by LSR and LowerInvoke. getJumpSize and getJumpAlignment are used by LowerInvoke. Do you suggest that I remove them from TargetLowering and keep them in ScalarTargetTransformInfo ? Thanks, Nadav On Oct 9, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > The

Thanks, that was a really helpful suggestion. If you're curious- here are some of the high cost areas: ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== DWARF Emission ===-------------------------------------------------------------------------=== Total Execution Time: 2.0117 seconds (2.0185 wall clock) ---User Time---

Hi All, A self-follow up and rephrase of my previous question with updated subject: What I want to do is to analyze hand-written assembly code with 'full details' where semantics of each instruction can be known in LLVM passes. Many of such instructions have no corresponding counterparts in IR/MIR forms, such as 'syscall' 'iret', etc. At MC level, such assembly code can

Llvm-mctoll will raise a binary back to LLVM IR. Not exactly what you want but it might be something you can leverage. https://github.com/microsoft/llvm-mctoll On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 1:19 PM Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 3:37 AM Lele Ma via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > My goal is to write

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 13:29:10 +0100 Danny Tipple via samba <samba at lists.samba.org> wrote: > I have a samba dc which i recently upgraded to 4.6.4. I was looking > at updating the functional level as it currently returns: > > Forest function level: (Windows) 2000 > Domain function level: (Windows) 2000 > Lowest function level of a DC: (Windows) 2000 > > There is

Hello, I'm dealing with financial time series. I'm trying to find out X in this sentence: The most recent close is the lowest level since X(date). Here's an example of what I'm looking for: library(fBasics) data(DowJones30) tail(DowJones30[,1:5],n=10) I need to come up with a vector that would look like this AA AXP T ... 2000-12-21

On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 15:09:41 +0100 Danny Tipple <danny at trials-forum.co.uk> wrote: > Unfortunately its an old setup that I’ve inherited from someone else. > > From what i understand there was originally a windows sbs server and > this samba dc has replaced that. It was done when samba 4 was in > early beta. > > Thanks for the link i found that thread but as you say

Hi, I replaced the MMTk code with a C-version MMTk code (I have been working on such AOT compiler for a while). The compiler should deal with most of the MMTk code base correctly - at least I get marksweep running with a tiny client). So I am trying to put the C version MMTk back with VmKit. I tried not to change much existing code except where necessary, such as name mangling and MMTkObject

Hi, I am wondering how I can get the JIT'd llvm IR during VMKit execution. I am stuck in precompiling phase (when loading library classes), and I am facing various problems. If I can log the JIT'd llvm IR (from Java bytecode), that would be convenient. I turned on --enable-debug, but it doesn't seem very helpful at this stage. Any other suggestion is welcome. Thanks very much.

Hi Yi, The precompiler is in charge of translating the most common classes of the Java runtime library to llvm code (typically, java.lang.Object), in order to natively compile these classes and decrease the bootstrap time. So, if you have a segmentation fault at this stage, it means that you have broken something in the interface between MMTk and VMKit. If it can helps you: * during a first

I have a samba dc which i recently upgraded to 4.6.4. I was looking at updating the functional level as it currently returns: Forest function level: (Windows) 2000 Domain function level: (Windows) 2000 Lowest function level of a DC: (Windows) 2000 There is only a single DC (this host). According to the documentation 2000 isn’t even supported anymore: