similar to: [MC] Target-Independent Small Data Section Handling

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

----- 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:

Oh, one thing I forgot to mention: ReadOnly objects are also counted as small data globals on PPC (on top of BSS, Data, Common). That's what the r2 base is for (.sdata2, defined to be constant data). 32-bit immediate loads take 2 ops minimum on PPC, so even constant loading benefits from small data. It'd be handy to add a third argument containing what kind would normally be returned:

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols:

Here is a module: @vals = internal unnamed_addr global [20000000 x i32] undef, align 4 When I compile it into an .o file: $ clang -c test.ll $ objdump -t test.o test.o: file format elf64-x86-64 SYMBOL TABLE: 0000000000000000 l df *ABS* 0000000000000000 test.ll 0000000000000000 l O .data 0000000004c4b400 vals LLVM puts the global in the .data section, and results in a 77MB .o file

On Mon, Apr 24, 2017 at 2:53 PM, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/23/2017 10:10 AM, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev wrote: > >> Here is a module: >> >> @vals = internal unnamed_addr global [20000000 x i32] undef, align 4 >> >> LLVM puts the global in the .data section, and results in a 77MB .o file >> of mostly zeroes. Why does

I'm trying to build LLVM on OPENBSD current with today's svn (feb 23), and it fails to build with the following errors: llvm[2]: Compiling ELFWriter.cpp for Release build In file included from ELFWriter.cpp:51: /root/llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetLoweringObjectFile.h:345: error: virtual outside class declaration /root/llvm/include/llvm/Target/TargetLoweringObjectFile.h:345: error:

I am again calling for help from LLVM developers ;) For my DSP backend, at the lowering stage and also at the AsmPrinter stage, I need to know if a GlobalAddress is a code or a data address. So I tried at the lowering stage to use: GlobalAddressSDNode *GSDN = cast<GlobalAddressSDNode>(Op); const GlobalValue *GV = GSDN->getGlobal(); GV->hasSection() and GV->getSection() But 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 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 >

Hi Elena, > (2) Proposal > Define one more Code Model, let's say "LargeNearConst", which will allow to put constants in .text. Isn't that a little heavy-handed? The large model only requires the less efficient access for symbols we can't control, and in fact x86 still uses pc-relative conditional branches within a function so it can't pretend to support a single

> 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 reply to myself... I didn't go in the right direction in my previous email. There is an easy way to tell if a GlobalValue corresponds to data or code: const GlobalValue *GV; if(Function::classof(GV)) ... // process the global value as a function else ... // process the global value as data Damien On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Damien Vincent <damien.llvm at

Hello all, I am a LLVM newer who want to add a new backend(EBC) into LLVM. After coping the related files from another target and modifying it, I meet a problem when I build the project. The error message is as follows: ================================================================ [ 94%] Built target llvm-dis Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-mc Undefined symbols:

On 3/21/11 2:00 PM, Damien Vincent wrote: > I reply to myself... I didn't go in the right direction in my previous > email. > > There is an easy way to tell if a GlobalValue corresponds to data or code: > const GlobalValue *GV; > if(Function::classof(GV)) > ... // process the global value as a function > else > ... // process the global value as data > >

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

> I think that the improved behavior for consts should be acceptable in the large model. But that's just me. By default, all constants should be in a special read-only section, and this section may be far from the text section. I'm working with JIT model or with only one object file. The code model, when all constants are near, we can call "LargeJIT". (Is it sounds better

> * 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

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 symbols is not very good. The symbol will be resolved accurately in non-PIC code, but suboptimally: the symbol reference cannot currently appear as the immediate operand of an instruction, and the code generator cannot make any assumptions

hi, I am trying to build the llvm trunk with make. I am trying a debug build and I am ending with the following build error. /home/rajika/projects/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/TargetLoweringObjectFile.cpp: In member function ‘virtual bool llvm::TargetLoweringObjectFileMachO::shouldEmitUsedDirectiveFor(const llvm::GlobalValue*, llvm::Mangler*) const’: