similar to: Meaning of IR inline assembly

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 1000 matches similar to: "Meaning of IR inline assembly"

2015 Nov 18
2
Meaning of IR inline assembly
Thanks, but I could not find the imr, dirflag, fpsr constraints here. Just the usual gcc/clang inline assembly constraints. Those one were of my concern, actually :) --  Alex 18.11.2015, 17:11, "David Siegel" <agnat at icloud.com>: >>  On 18.11.2015, at 16:28, AlexandreFressange via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>  I reduced the above
2020 Jan 07
2
Inline assembly in intel syntax mishandling i constraint
Hi all, I'm getting rather odd behavior from a call asm inteldialect(). TL;DR is "mov reg, $0" with a "i" constraint on $0 is behaving identical to "mov reg, dword ptr [$0]" and differently from "movl $0, reg" in AT&T syntax. I'm not sure how to get clang to emit an inteldialect, so for this example, I'm emitting llvm and then modifying
2013 Jun 07
2
[LLVMdev] add Inline assembly in LLVM IR
Hi all, I'm working for translating dex bytecode to LLVM IR In order to communicate with Android interpreter, The work have to add data below some instructions I want to use inline assembly to add data. Thus, I wrote a little program to find out the related LLVM IR int main() { asm(".long 0x12345678"); return 0; } and I use clang to translate it into bitcode It's the
2020 Jan 08
2
Inline assembly in intel syntax mishandling i constraint
> On Jan 7, 2020, at 18:41, Craig Topper <craig.topper at gmail.com> wrote: > > What version of llvm are you using? This looks like it may be fixed on trunk. After poking at my installation of rust, I'm not entirely sure what version of LLVM it uses. Looking at the GitHub page, it looks like Rust maintains their own copy of llvm and cherry picks commits. The C example was
2009 Aug 03
2
[LLVMdev] inline asm question
Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect
2008 Jun 06
0
[LLVMdev] Trouble with inline asm
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:32 AM, Tomas Lindquist Olsen <tomas.l.olsen at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm having some trouble with inline asm expressions, more specifically > how to create the right FunctionType for a given constraint set. > So far it has worked well for inputs, but not for outputs. The inline > asm support in this language (which is D, LLVMDC[1]) is
2009 Aug 03
0
[LLVMdev] inline asm question
2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >>> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >>>
2009 Jul 31
0
[LLVMdev] Inserting Instructions (pass)
On Jul 31, 2009, at 10:24 AM, Michael Graumann wrote: > Hi, > I’ am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which > FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? > If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the > new produced InlineAsm? > > Thanks for help Inline asm works like a "callee". So for: call void asm sideeffect
2009 Jul 31
2
[LLVMdev] Inserting Instructions (pass)
Hi, I' am trying to insert an InlineAsm Instruction in my pass, which FunctionType do I need for Inlineasm? If I understand it right, I need a call instruction to insert the new produced InlineAsm? Thanks for help, Michael for (BasicBlock::iterator bi = i->begin(), be = i->end(); bi != be; ++bi){ std::vector<const Type*> asm_arguments;
2009 Aug 03
0
[LLVMdev] inline asm question
2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. > My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference > (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). > Works on x86. > > %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", >
2013 Jun 26
1
[LLVMdev] Inline asm call argument mismatch?
Hello, In the following code snippet: %tmp49 = call i64 asm "movq %gs:${1:P},$0", "=r,im,,~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64* @kernel_stack) #6, !dbg !6625, !srcloc !5841 I would expect for the inline asm call to receive two arguments because of the ${1:P} corresponding to a %P1 that will append the $1 to %%gs:. Can someone explain why there is only one argument in this call? Moreover,
2009 Aug 03
2
[LLVMdev] inline asm question
The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). Works on x86. %42 = call i64 asm sideeffect "syscall\0A\09", "={ax},0,{di},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags}"(i64 231, i64 %41) nounwind ; <i64> [#uses=2] -Rich
2009 Dec 22
1
[LLVMdev] is there a compiler barrier that is effective at codegen level?
Hi, I would like to prevent that two adjacent calls to external functions getting interleaved/separated by other neighboring code. This mixing seems to happen in the code generator. I can prevent it by putting the two calls into a separate BB, but then I can't use -simplifycfg, -jump-threading, ... as is. Here is an example: %160 = add i64 %158, %159 ; <i64>
2012 Jan 18
2
[LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?
Hi everyone. On i386--win32 targets, LLVM tries to use the MSVCRT routine _ftol2 for floating-point to unsigned conversions, but this function has a nonstandard calling convention LLVM doesn't understand. It takes its input operand on the x87 stack as ST0, which it pops off of the stack before returning. The return value is given in EDX:EAX. In effect, I need to call it like this: %1 = call
2009 Aug 01
2
[LLVMdev] Inserting Instructions (pass)
Thank you Chris, for your hint, but I am still too stupid. I tried two versions asm_arguments.push_back(Type::VoidTy); FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, asm_arguments, false); Alternatively FunctionType *asm_type = FunctionType::get(Type::VoidTy, std::vector<const Type*>(), false); . Can you give me a snippet of example code, or somebody else?
2019 Dec 09
4
IR inline assembly: the x86 Intel "offset" operator
Hi all, I'm trying to land (a rebased version of) http://llvm.org/D37461 - which should make it possible to handle x86 Intel assembly like mov eax, offset Foo::ptr + 1 (Currently, omitting the +1 works... but offset doesn't work in compound expressions.) I'm having trouble figuring out what inline assembly I can emit into the LLVM IR that will work properly. So far, the closest
2012 Jan 19
0
[LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:50 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > Hi everyone. On i386--win32 targets, LLVM tries to use the MSVCRT > routine _ftol2 for floating-point to unsigned conversions, but this > function has a nonstandard calling convention LLVM doesn't understand. > It takes its input operand on the x87 stack as ST0, which it pops off > of the stack before returning. The return value
2012 Jan 19
2
[LLVMdev] Best way to interface with MSVC _ftol2 runtime function for fptoui?
2012/1/18 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: > This should work: > %1 = call i64 asm "call __ftol2", "=A,{st},~{dirflag},~{fpsr},~{flags},~{st}" (double %x) nounwind Thanks Jakob, the ~{st} constraint does the trick. It wasn't clear to me that "clobbers" means "pops" for x87 registers. -Joe
2015 Jul 29
2
[LLVMdev] optimizer clobber EFLAGS
Using Clang/LLVM 3.6.0 we are observing a case where the optimizations are clobbering EFLAGS on x86_64. This is inconvenient when the status of bit 9 (IF), which controls interrupts, changes. Here's a simple test program. Assume that the external function foo() modifies the IF bit in EFLAGS. --- #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdbool.h> void foo(void); int a; int bar(void)
2016 Oct 11
2
Landing Pad bug?
HI, When compiling the open-source software cryptopp (https://www.cryptopp.com/#download <https://www.cryptopp.com/#download>) version 5.6.4 I found a strange issue with the IR generated. The issue only appears when compiling with -O2 optimisation in the integer.cpp file (the function is _ZN8CryptoPPrsERNSt3__113basic_istreamIcNS0_11char_traitsIcEEEERNS_7IntegerE ->