similar to: How is llvm-avr backound integration going?

To those interested in AVR backend additions to LLVM, the LLVM review tools "Phabricator" ( don't ask me to say that 3 times fast ), allows easy searching. Go to http://reviews.llvm.org/ and type in AVR in the search entry. This will give you a list of the commits, and resolutions. From my understanding ( NO Expert ), a large part of the skeleton code has been added. The leave

Hello all, I have submitted and merged patches for most of the public modifications required for the AVR backend, and I am amount to start the process of adding the lib/Target/AVR directory piece by piece. As this will be a significant portion of code (~7000 lines), it should have a code owner. I have been working on the backend for the last year, maintaining it, overseeing contributions, and

I think you can probably treat that as a broad ‘no objection’ by the community. Are there any other active contributors to the AVR back end? David > On 27 Oct 2015, at 09:41, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Ping. > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Dylan McKay <dylanmckay34 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > I have

Hey all, The AVR backend has now finally been merged in-tree completely. Thanks to Krzysztof and Matt for all of their hard work reviewing patches <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/query/AuHaJ3SXjDmO> Development will now halt on the downstream repository (on GitHub <https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm>), and it will now be done LLVM proper. This is good news, especially for the

I am working on an LLVM backend for the AVR architecture, and am having troubles working with the codegen layer, trying to get around the quirks of the binary encodings of the AVR ISR. There are several different families of AVR microcontrollers, each with a minimum 'core' instruction set. Each family builds upon (or removes) the core ISR with more instructions or different encodings. My

I'm beginning to use the AVR backend. I ran into the problem, that newer (tiny1, mega0) µC as a tiny1614 are not supported. How do I add these to the AVR backend? Thanks!

Am 04.03.20 um 13:28 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > * *The C/C++ function needs to be declared with either the calling > convention avr-interrupt or avr-non-blocking-interrupt.* Skipping > this step will cause regular ret instructions to be emitted for > return-from-subroutine, instead of the required reti for interrupt > handlers. ISRs also have stricter

Thanks! The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this should be simple. Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so on stored? -- Wilhelm Am 04.03.20 um 11:03 schrieb Dylan McKay: > Hey Wilhelm, > > This should be possible by editing the 'AVRDevices.td' [1]TableGen > definitions to add an entry for the newer chip types.

Hi, There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved. Should we just make it a normal target? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi All, For quite some time there's been a side project for developing an AVR back end for LLVM: http://sourceforge.net/projects/avr-llvm/ What is required from us to be able to add this work to the LLVM repo? And when do you think would be a good time for us to do that? If this is located somewhere in the docs and I've missed it, pointers would certainly be appreciated. Thanks, Eric

Am 04.03.20 um 11:16 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this > should be simple. > > Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so > on stored? > > > At the moment, this is not implemented in LLVM; these details are left > to the frontend. Clang/compiler-rt does not

I think this is broken in at least one place when legalising the DAG. This llvm ir: %3 = call { i16, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i16(i16 %2, i16 11) Fails to lower correctly on AVR but the problem is, unfortunately, not just coming from the AVR Target code and I am not sure it can be cleanly fixed just there. (But I would be very happy to be proved wrong as I'm very new to this.) The above

What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target? Does anyone else have any concerns about doing so? -Chris > On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +better dylanmckay address > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:

Hi Dylan, the following code volatile uint8_t v1; volatile uint8_t v2; __attribute__((interrupt)) void __vector_21(void) { v2 = v1; } produces in C mode: 00000092 <__vector_21>: 92: 80 91 61 00 lds r24, 0x0061 ; 0x800061 <v1> 96: 80 93 60 00 sts 0x0060, r24 ; 0x800060 <__data_end> 9a: 08 95 ret and in C++ mode: 00000074

> > Should we just make it a normal target? > My only remaining reservation here - the generic DebugInfo tests, which presumably due to an unimplemented 16-bit branch somewhere deep in the llvm-objdump callstack. The AVR backend passes virtually all of the LLVM test suite but these when avr-unknown-unknown is set as the default target. It feels like the inclusion of ~80 XFAILs for these

On 27 Oct 2015, at 09:48, Senthil Kumar <senthil.thecoder at gmail.com> wrote: > > Haven't worked on this yet, but I work on the gcc AVR backend (and binutils), and I'm very interested in this - I intend to work on it in my spare time. And do you have any comments / objections to Dylan becoming the code owner? David

Greetings. I have a Tripp-Lite AVR-900U that I am trying to get work with NUT. (I rather naively bought the thing assuming that since NUT worked with the AVR-750U, that the same would be so of this model.) Here's what I've got so far: # upsdrvctl start Network UPS Tools - UPS driver controller 2.4.3 Network UPS Tools - Generic HID driver 0.34 (2.4.3) USB communication driver 0.31 This

I maintain and develop an AVR backend for LLVM on GitHub <https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm>. It has now progressed quite far, with the ability to compile most non-trivial programs unmodified (for example, the Arduino <https://www.arduino.cc/> suite. It has complete machine code/ELF support, also implementing the entire instruction set (as of 2015), and a functionally-complete assembly

[the mailing list you want is nut-upsuser.] On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Blagovest Kolenichev wrote: > Hi, all > > I had fail to find in the supported hardware page > > http://www.networkupstools.org/compat/stable.html > > support for "NOVA AVR 625", but see that "NOVA AVR 600 Serial" > is supported. Can you tell us is there a big difference between

Hello LLVMDevs, I am looking for an example for how to lower LLVM IR to mulsu kind of instruction. I found that AVR back end have such instruction but AVRInstrInfo.td does not define any DAG pattern for which this instruction gets emitted. def MULSURdRr : FMUL2RdRr<1, (outs), (ins GPR8:$lhs, GPR8:$rhs), "mulsu\t$lhs, $rhs", []>, Requires<[SupportsMultiplication]>; Also