similar to: is clang9 supporting asm-goto?

Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> writes: > o Modeling sub-architectures on a per-function basis > > Functions could be specialized for a certain sub-architecture. This is > helpful to have certain functions optimized e.g. with AVX2 enabled, but > the general program being compiled for a more generic architecture. > We do not address per-function annotations in this

Hi, a couple of weeks ago I discussed with Peter how to improve LLVM's support for heterogeneous computing. One weakness we (and others) have seen is the absence of multi-module support in LLVM. Peter came up with a nice idea how to improve here. I would like to put this idea up for discussion. ## The problem ## LLVM-IR modules can currently only contain code for a single target

Hi Tobias, I didn't really get it. Is the idea that the same bitcode is going to be codegen'd for different architectures, or is each sub-module going to contain different bitcode? In the later case you may as well just use multiple modules, perhaps in conjunction with a scheme to store more than one module in the same file on disk as a convenience. Ciao, Duncan. > a couple of weeks

In our project we combine regular binary code and LLVM IR code for kernels, embedded as a special data symbol of ELF object. The LLVM IR for kernel existing at compile-time is preliminary, and may be optimized further during runtime (pointers analysis, polly, etc.). During application startup, runtime system builds an index of all kernels sources embedded into the executable. Host and kernel code

I'm not convinced that having multi-module IR files is the way to go. It just seems like a lot of infrastructure/design work for little gain. Can the embedded modules have embedded modules themselves? How deep can this go? If not, then the embedded LLVM IR language is really a subset of the full LLVM IR language. How do you share variables between parent and embedded modules? I feel that

(and FWIW, I'm currently trying to finish the patch that makes this a reality... mostly hard because it has to unwind a loooot of complexity we've built up due to not having this) On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:47 PM Jeremy Lakeman via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2018-May/123407.html > > TLDR; CallInst & InvokeInst

FYI there is now serious talk of the Linux kernel dropping support for compilers that *don't* support asm goto. On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 13:13 -0700, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 11:44 AM, John McCall via llvm-dev > > ts.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 4, 2017, at 2:12 PM, Matthias Braun <matze at braunis.de> > >

On Tue, 2017-04-04 at 16:26 +0000, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM Yatsina, Marina via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Asm goto feature was introduces to GCC in order to optimize the > > support for tracepoints in Linux kernel (it can be used for other > > things that do nop patching). > >   > > GCC

Linux kernel is using the “asm goto” feature, other projects probably use it as well. I think it provides motivation to support it in LLVM. Regarding the complexity, I believe there is some infrastructure that we can at least partially reuse (the support for “indirectbr” instruction). My focus is adding “asm goto” support, the other things are indeed completely orthogonal and came up in bugs

Hi to all if someone of you is interested on it, i've changed the code of app_asr.c With these patch you can use the ASR application to play DTMF tones, so you can have your own AGI application that uses the ASR and manages the DTMF tones without change the dialplan. EXAMPLE exten => 003,1,Ringing exten => 003,2,Wait(3) exten => 003,3,Answer exten =>

Hi, i have been running R 2.11 compiles with the goto blas libraries successfully for about a year. I am running Ubuntu 10.10 64 bit. However, recently I have been periodically getting a segfault when running R (and numpy -- also compiled against goto blas). When I check the dmesg error log I get the following message R[28792]: segfault at 7f4183ed4000 ip 00007f4196f05f03 sp 00007f4192d55d20

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:31:22AM -0800, Kees Cook wrote: > On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 1:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz at infradead.org> wrote: > > If you ever get to the point where it makes sense to build a kernel with > > LLVM [...] > > Just to speak to this point in particular: it makes sense to build > kernels with LLVM right now. It's already happened;

* Ingo Molnar <mingo at kernel.org> wrote: > To quantify it: I just performed a test build of a Linux distro kernel config > (Fedora x86-64), and counted the number of callsites that use 'asm goto' > functionality with the v4.15 kernel (including drivers). > > The results: > > Linux distro | !CONFIG_TRACING

Code cleanup. Signed-off-by: Wanlong Gao <gaowanlong at cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/isoinfo.c | 2 -- 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/daemon/isoinfo.c b/daemon/isoinfo.c index c0ee1c9..fd777bd 100644 --- a/daemon/isoinfo.c +++ b/daemon/isoinfo.c @@ -255,8 +255,6 @@ isoinfo (const char *path) goto done; ret = parse_isoinfo (lines); - if (ret == NULL) - goto done;

Hello, guys. You know LLVM C backend emits 'goto' statement for branching, being based on the bytecode which is composed of units of the basic block. Therefore, I wonder if it would be hard to modify the C backend so as to spits out functions instead of 'goto' statements for branching. I'm just a novice so I have no good sense on this if this would be feasible. How do you

There is a paper from Andew Appel: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=278285 it explains the connection between SSA basic blocks and functions pretty well. This paper may also help: http://www.jantar.org/papers/ssa-lambda/ Cheers, Gabor

Hello, There's been a flurry of activity around indrect goto recently. For anyone interested, here's a document explaining the curent design: http://nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/IndirectGoto.txt Dan

Is goto from inline asm supported in LLVM 2.8 ? I am searching for something similar to what gcc 4.5 does: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Extended%20asm%20with%20goto http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Extended-Asm.html#Extended%20asm%20with%20goto which allows jumping from inline assembly to a label defined in C. I want to jump from inline asm to a basic block in LLVM.

I have two possible senarios for making a call from an AGI.. Senario1 - Using GoTo In the extensions.conf I have.. [dial-out] exten => _9.,1,AGI(myagi) exten => _9.,2,Dial(SIP/blah/${EXTEN:1}) In the AGI I have.. EXEC GoTo dial-out|9555678|2 So using this method I don't have to really edit the AGI ever if I change the dialplan around as long at the context is correct.. At the end of

I'm working on setting up a macro that will allow users to call their own DID number, and when they hear their voicemail greeting hit the * key and be prompted for their password to check vmail. For some reason though the background command isn't working as I'd expect it to: [macro-vmessage] exten => s,1,Answer exten =>