similar to: RFC: Absolute or "fixed address" symbols as immediate operands

On 10/24/2016 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev wrote: > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk > <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > > The specific change I have in mind is to allow !range metadata on > GlobalObjects. This would > be similar to existing !range metadata, but it would apply to the >

> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote: > The specific change I have in mind is to allow !range metadata on GlobalObjects. This would > be similar to existing !range metadata, but it would apply to the

> On Oct 25, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 10:48 PM Chris Lattner via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > >> On Oct 24, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk <mailto:peter at pcc.me.uk>> wrote:

I was working on https://reviews.llvm.org/D81911 to try and fix https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=46340 . Through the review process we happened upon a design limitation or perhaps a potential mis-modelling of GlobalIFunc in the IR object hierarchy, which leads to some problems in LTO flows. To summarize, as it currently stands (and in the hopes of faithfully representing the conclusions of

> * Calling getBaseObject() on a GlobalIFunc returns its resolver function. I still don't understand how it can happen looking to the code ( https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/master/llvm/lib/IR/Globals.cpp#L430). I believe it should return nullptr (the same as if you call it from GlobalAlias that refers to GlobalIFunc). I don't have a strong opinion here because deriving

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:31 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Oct 10, 2016, at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > I wanted to summarise some discussion on llvm-commits [0,1] as an RFC, as > I felt it demanded wider circulation. > > Our support for references to absolute

On 24 October 2016 at 16:54, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> > wrote: >> >> On 10/24/2016 1:07 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> >>

On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Oct 11, 2016, at 12:04 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > > I have been experimenting with a number of approaches to representation in >> SDAG, and I have found one that seems to work best, and would be the least >> intrusive (unfortunately most approaches to this

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> On Behalf Of Fangrui > Song via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2020 10:18 PM > To: Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com> > Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for > representing function PLT

> -----Original Message----- > From: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2020 4:04 PM > To: Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> > Cc: Leonard Chan <leonardchan at google.com>; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: [EXT] Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC][LLVM] New Constant type for > representing function PLT entries > > On Fri, Aug

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 6:52 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > So, to summarise the overall consensus on this thread: > - We should introduce a GlobalConstant class which supports definitions > and declarations > - It should derive from GlobalValue > - No type changes for GlobalValue (i.e. still required to be pointer type) > - To communicate the range

> You get the code you want with > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > or > > @foo = external protected global i8 Sorry, not quiet. What you get is leaq foo(%rip), %rax Since it is still assuming foo is a position in the file. So yes, we need a way to declare an absolute value. If we can declare it, we may as well use the same construct to define it. I guess the

Responding to both of your emails in one, sorry for the delay: > On Oct 25, 2016, at 11:20 AM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote: > I think there are a couple of additional considerations we should make here: > What are we trying to model? To me it's clear that GlobalConstant is for modelling integers, not pointers. That alone may not necessarily be enough to

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > You get the code you want with > > > > @foo = external hidden global i8 > > > > or > > > > @foo = external protected global i8 > > Sorry, not quiet. What you get is > > leaq foo(%rip), %rax > > Since it is still assuming foo is a

I've prepared a preliminary patch with the intention of implementing PPC-EABI subtarget features for applications that run in a standalone embedded environment. https://reviews.llvm.org/D26344 The most significant difference compared with the SVR4 ABI is the use of SDA (small data area). This allows full-word constants and data to be grouped into small-data sections accessed using relocated

On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 5:49 AM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > >>> @foo = globalconst i32 42 > >>> > >>> > >>> This is equivalent to writing "foo = 42" in assembly? > >> > >> > >> Yes. > > > > > > Back in the day the idea was to use an alias whose ConstantExpr

Just pinging this patch for review, particularly from PPC maintainers: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26344 It's now rebased for the latest master commits, `check-all` test results match those of the upstream base. There is also a clang driver patch, extending PPC target support for the `-G` flag: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26345 And lld patch implementing the _SDA_BASE_ symbols and includes an

Is it possible to get a register number to which the value is allocated to in MIPS in DAGToDAG class? More Specifically: SDValue Reg3 = Node->getOperand(3); if (RegisterSDNode *R = dyn_cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)) { op3 = cast<RegisterSDNode>(Reg3)->getReg();

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dmitry Antipov" <antipov at dev.rtsoft.ru> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Thursday, April 4, 2013 3:22:05 AM > Subject: Is r174746 broken on ARM? > > Hello Hal, > > I have a strong suspicion

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jack Andersen via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 10:39:53 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [MC] Target-Independent Small Data Section Handling > > Just pinging this patch for review, particularly from PPC > maintainers: