similar to: [LLVMdev] Could metadata ever be mandatory for correctness in LLVM IR?

On Wed, 1 Jul 2015 at 08:19 Stephen Cross <scross at scross.co.uk> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I was wondering if anyone could answer the questions in my first > email. These were: > > * Why does Clang generate 8 byte alignment for 16+ byte arrays on > x86-64, even though the AMD64 ABI seems to require 16 byte alignment? > * Clang has some logic in

Hi Reid, Thanks for your response. The issue is that every LLVM frontend needing ABI compliance has to re-implement the same target-dependent logic, which is a significant burden; the ABI compliance code inside Clang isn't really usable for other frontends as-is. We haven't got many good options here :-). I think a lot of people would've hoped that LLVM would provide the means for

On Tue, 30 Jun 2015 at 06:02 Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Stephen Cross" <scross at scross.co.uk> > > To: "Reid Kleckner" <rnk at google.com> > > Cc: "Clang Developers List" <cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers > Mailing List" <llvmdev at

Hi everyone, (Also CC'ed cfe-dev since this seems relevant to Clang, particularly the questions at the end.) I've been working on a library to generate LLVM IR that complies with platform ABIs (the current focus is on C but I'm also interested in ABIs for other languages). You can find it here: https://github.com/scross99/llvm-abi To explain further (for those who are unfamiliar),

> > This seems interesting, I have a few questions: > > > Has the ISA been finalized yet or is it still a work in progress? Will > there be a fixed number of registers? > The design document has a high-level idea of the ISA, or rather of the AST we're thinking of going with: https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/AstSemantics.md The final encoding isn't

Possibly protobuf or capn proto would be much more clean alternatives to json. I was working with interpreting instruction semantics a while back, and you shouldn't have to write a parser to get the data structure back into coherent form, you can get what you want automatically and have the structure isolated into a common schema. On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:22 AM, Stephen Cross <scross at

> I suspect #2 is the right design, mostly because I suspect most of the interesting and important inference cases are going to be cases where we can easily infer the stronger guarantee, and once inferred we will have much more freedom to optimize based on this stronger guarantee... Can't the stronger guarantee be represented in the existing system by either: * Adding 'readonly'

The LLVM Module has an optional target triple and target datalayout. Without them, an llvm::DataLayout can't be constructed with meaningful data. The benefit to making them optional is to permit optimization that would work across all possible DataLayouts, then allow us to commit to a particular one at a later point in time, thereby performing more optimization in advance. This feature is not

Hi Hal I was also looking at providing such a support in LLVM for capturing (both explicit and implicit) parallelism in LLVM. We had an initial discussion around this and your proposal comes at the right time. We support such an initiative. We can work together to get this support implemented in LLVM. But, I have a slight different view. I think today parallelism does not necessarily mean OpenMP

On 15 February 2011 18:30, David A. Greene <greened at obbligato.org> wrote: > { int32, int8, { int8 } } > > Do I understand you correctly? Hi David, I'm actually looking for answers, not requesting features... ;) That structure would actually solve the problem for this specific case, but not for the general case. There are far too many exceptions to be worth make a special

Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> writes: >> There are ways to do that without losing too much information.  For >> example, we render the above without using arrays at all: >> >> %I = type { i32, i8, i16 } >> %J = type { %I, i8, i16 } > > Not if you follow the Itanium C++ ABI. > > In your example it works because { i8, i16 } pads nicely to 4

Ive recently inherited an old samba installation which was originally migrated from a windows 2003 server. It was running samba 4.2.13 so i upgraded to 4.6.4. All is well and everything appears to be working correctly but get the following error error when running the db check tool: Fix replPropertyMetaData on CN=f37883ec-90f7-4ac3-b478-00a266e31f83,CN=NTDS

Considering engineering my own code-generator. If I do go ahead, will open-source the end result. Needs to read [parse] one language, and output JSON (conformant to a specific JSON-schema). Then needs to read JSON, and reproduce the code in that language, and [possibly] merge the generated code with existing code. Languages I'm looking to support are all rather popular (Python, Go, Rust,

Can we go back a little? 1) Add a new transformation to InstCombine that will replace 'getelementptr > i8, i8* null, <ty> %n' with 'inttoptr <ty> %n to i8*' when <ty> has the > same size as a pointer for the target architecture. What's the actual problem with this approach? I personally find it the most compelling - it is well-defined (well,

On 15 August 2012 11:04, Raghavendra, Prakash <Prakash.Raghavendra at amd.com> wrote: > My idea is to capture parallelism with the way you have said using > ‘metadata’. I agree to record the parallel regions in the metadata (as given by the user). However, we > could also give placeholders to record any additional information that the compiler writer needs like > number of

On 02/24/2014 11:27 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: > > On Feb 24, 2014, at 11:17 AM, Philip Reames <listmail at philipreames.com > <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> >> On 02/24/2014 12:45 AM, Andrew Trick wrote: >>> >>> On Feb 21, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Philip Reames >>> <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at

On Oct 4, 2011, at 4:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 5 October 2011 00:19, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> 1. The native client folks trying to use LLVM IR as a portable representation that abstracts arbitrary C calling conventions. This doesn't work because the frontend has to know the C calling conventions of the target. > (...) >> 2. The OpenCL folks

On 5 October 2011 01:19, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  My email was not intended to say that I'm not interested in LLVM improving - quite the contrary.  My email was to rebut Dan's implicit claim that PNaCL and using LLVM as a portable IR is never going to work.  I'm arguing in the "opencl" and

On 30 January 2015 at 20:43, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I think this dependence should be satisfied by the target system's unwinder, > whatever that is. If folks want to use this libunwind for their platform, > that's fine... but we should probably continue to use libgcc_s and libgcc_eh > on linux when that's the platform's unwinder.

On 12 March 2013 16:39, Óscar Fuentes <ofv at wanadoo.es> wrote: > > This is not possible, except for specific cases. > > Consider this code: > > long foo(long *p) { > ++p; > return *p; > } > > The X86 machine code would do something like > > add %eax, 4 > > for `++p', but for x86_64 it would be > > add %rax, 8 > > But you