similar to: how to link clang generated obj targeting BPF

Dear there, I wasn't able to generate obj file for bpf using llc: llc -march bpf -filetype=obj foo.bc Anyone knows what is the missing part in their backend? I want to make it work for my project. Thanks, Xiaochu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150802/e0b55467/attachment.html>

Hi Alexei, I haven't tried to run code yet. The clang frontend can generate machine code for bpf but llc does not do the job. When i use : llc -march bpf -filetype=obj arith.bc It has this error message: Assertion failed: (isa<X>(Val) && "cast<Ty>() argument of incompatible type!"), function cast, file

Hi, Alexei On 2015/7/30 1:13, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On 7/29/15 2:38 AM, He Kuang wrote: >> Hi, Alexei >> >> On 2015/7/28 10:18, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >>> On 7/25/15 3:04 AM, He Kuang wrote: >>>> I noticed that for 64-bit elf format, the reloc sections have >>>> 'Addend' in the entry, but there's no 'Addend' info

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Author: dsanders > Date: Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > New Revision: 239035 > > Include BPF target in CMake builds. > > Modified: > llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt > > --- llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt (original) > +++ llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > @@

Hi All, I'd like to propose to upgrade BPF backend to first class citizen. Current status of it: - used with linux kernel on x64, arm64, s390 architectures - projects that use it: perf, tc, ovs - there are few front-ends in the works: . one is translating custom language to C and then using clang/llvm . another is generating llvm IR directly . yet another is using clang rewriter to

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, > elfutils, and binutils. great! Can you share the link to glibc and the other patches? > diff --git a/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h b/include/llvm/Support/ELF.h > index 352fd8a..fb8ff71 100644 > ---

Hi everyone, I am working with Alexei Starovoitov to contribute an LLVM buildbot for the experimental BPF backend. I am following the steps at [1] to setup a buildbot and I was mostly successful: I was able to setup a slave and a temporary master to check its base config. Now I'm not sure about the next step: patching the "slaves.py" and "builders.py" files in zorg. * Is

On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 04:28:13PM +0800, Wangnan (F) wrote: > > It doesn't work for me at first since in my llvm there's only > llvm.bpf.load.*. > > I think llvm.bpf.store.* belone to some patches you haven't posted yet? nope. only loads have special instructions ld_abs/ld_ind which are represented by these intrinsics. stores, so far, are done via single

On 8/4/15 11:51 PM, Wangnan (F) wrote: > void bpf_store_half(void *skb, int off, int val) > asm("llvm.bpf.store.half"); > int func() > { > bpf_store_half(0, 0, 0); > return 0; > } > > Compiled with: > > $ clang -g -target bpf -O2 -S -c test.c > > And get this: > > .text > .globl func > .align

Galina, thanks again for your help. I have cooked a new patch that should make a bit more sense. I have added the new builder under _get_experimental_scheduled_builders(), as the comment above that function suggested me it would be a good idea. :) Does it look a reasonable start? Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies,

Hello Marco, Welcome aboard! slaves.py keeps the build slaves definitions, builders.py keeps the builders definitions. You have to have both. The steps of adding a new slave is here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToAddABuilder.html. Please make sure you done the step # 10 before bringing your slave up, otherwise it wouldn't be authorized by the master and will be blacklisted after multiple

Thank you. Alexei just committed the change to SVN. Regards, Marco Leogrande Sent by a carbon-based life form; hence, it may contain repetitions, inaccuracies, logical fallacies and repetitions. On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Galina Kistanova <gkistanova at gmail.com> wrote: > LGTM. > Please commit. > > Thanks > > Galina > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 8:32 PM,

Send again since llvmdev is moved to llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org On 2015/8/5 9:58, Wangnan (F) wrote: > > > On 2015/8/4 17:01, Wangnan (F) wrote: >> For people who in llvmdev: >> >> This mail is belong to a thread in linux kernel mailing list, the >> first message >> can be retrived from: >> >> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/55B1535E.8090406 at

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 10 February 2016 at 06:44, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> But I also see another option, which someone else mentioned up-thread: >> simply make only the regression tests be supported. Without a regression >> test case that

On 2015/8/4 3:44, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: [SNIP] >> I'll post 2 LLVM patches by replying this mail. Please have a look and >> help me >> send them to LLVM if you think my code is correct. > > [SNIP] > patch 2: > do we really need to hack clang? > Can you just define a function that aliases to intrinsic, > like we do for ld_abs/ld_ind ? > void

On 2015/8/12 12:57, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:34:43AM +0800, Wangnan (F) via llvm-dev wrote: >> Think about a program like this: >> >> struct strA { int a; } >> struct strB { int b; } >> int func() { >> struct strA a; >> struct strB b; >> >> a.a = 1; >> b.b = 2; >>

On 06/16/2016 06:57 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev wrote: > On 06/15/2016 10:14 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 2:37 PM, Richard Henderson via iovisor-dev >> <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: >>> This same value for EM_BPF is being propagated to glibc, >>> elfutils, and binutils. >> >> great! >> Can

Hello llvm-dev, I'm working on a project that is looking at using BPF as the underlying instruction set for running programs in a protected environment. We have a working prototype but have run into a few issues and missing functionality. It appears these might be due to BPF development being focused on usage in the Linux kernel. Our requirements are broader (rodata, shared objects with

Thanks for the detailed info! The problem was that I tried without assertions and didn't inspect the IR closely as it contained this, for now, illegal instruction: %6 = bitcast i8* %5 to i8 addrspace(1)* This is clearly a clang error. I suggest opening a bug report, or sending the reproducer to cfe-dev at llvm.lists.org so someone will take a look that has more clang experience. @Matt Do

This is for BPF output. BPF program output bytes to perf through a tracepoint. For decoding such data, we need a way to describe the format of the buffer. This patch is a try which gives each variable a unique number by introducing a new intrinsic 'llvm.typeid.for'. At the bottom is an example of using that intrinsic and the result of $ clang -target bpf -O2 -c -S ./test_typeid.c