similar to: [Repost] Obtaining the actual size of BBs in bytes and the number of fixups per each BB

Hello, I am working on my research using LLVM. I need to obtain the following information at each object file during compilation, and want to store them into the new section that I define. Currently the target architecture is x86_64 with ELF format. *a) actual size of basic blocks in bytes to be emitted * *b) number of fixups (adjusted in MCAssembler.cpp) that belong to each basic block * I

> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On Behalf Of Marcello Maggioni > Subject: [LLVMdev] Is it safe to insert instructions in batches into BBs? > Because I need to insert instructions in a certain specific order inside > multiple different BBs I found it easy to use the IRBuilder to create > instructions without inserting them into a

hello list, I was wondering: anybody ever wrote an asterisk based bbs? not a bbs about asterisk, but a vocal bbs that runs on asterisk, so that people can call, hear the discussion of the day, leave messages, etc. it seems a rather basic application to me though I cannot find much about. thanks l. -- Creato con M2, il rivoluzionario client e-mail di Opera: http://www.opera.com/m2/

Hi, all I wonder whether I can preserve basic blocks of llvm-bc when it is compiled to the target(x86) binary. for instance, #llc --march=x86 test1.bc -o test1.s #llvm-gcc -O0 -o test1 test1.s then, can BBs from output binary of 'test1' find their correspondents from 'test1.bc' and vice versa? What I eventually want to find out is 1-1 mapping of BBs between llvm-bc and

Marcello Maggioni <marcello at codeplay.com> writes: > I'm getting a very strange behaviour while adding already created > instructions in batches into basicblocks instead of creating and > inserting them immediately. > > Because I need to insert instructions in a certain specific order > inside multiple different BBs I found it easy to use the IRBuilder to > create

Hi, I'm getting a very strange behaviour while adding already created instructions in batches into basicblocks instead of creating and inserting them immediately. Because I need to insert instructions in a certain specific order inside multiple different BBs I found it easy to use the IRBuilder to create instructions without inserting them into a BB, storing them somewhere (vector, map

> Showing the value for the fixup requires full object > code layout and relaxation, which isn't done is the text-to-text path. Their are 2 problems I'm looking to solve: 1) How do we unit-test the integrated assembler when there are fixups? 2) Can we avoid the duplication in encoding a fixup versus encoding an immediate? In the case of ADR, the fixup was properly being

Hi, I am trying to undertand which code in LLVM patches the fixups generated by assembler. Here is what I am doing: I use "llvm-mc" to compile X86 assembly code, like below: $ echo "jmp 5000" | ./bin/llvm-mc -assemble -triple=i386 -show-encoding -x86-asm-syntax=att -output-asm-variant=1 .text jmp 5000 # encoding: [0xeb,A]

I've posted the following to R-help on May 15. It has reproducible R code for real data -- and a real (academic, i.e unpaid) consultion background. I'd be glad for some insight here, mainly not for myself. In the mean time, we've learned that it is to be expected for anova(*, "marginal") to be contrast dependent, but still are glad for advice if you have experience. Thank

Greets, Is it possible to obtain the actual match count if you're using set_collapse_key()? ie, the total count *before* the collapsing occurs (without using get_mset()). Alternatively, will MSet::get_matches_estimated() return the true - pre-collapse - count, or will it also be affected by collapsing? Thanks Henry

On Oct 10, 2011, at 10:11 AM, Jack Carter wrote: > Gang, > > I'm tasked with direct object generation for Mips and am trying to not > hack the code. > > I how exactly does one set an expression to be PC relative and if the > compiler can resolve it, not produce a relocation? > Fixups are created for all expressions that may need a relocation. The MC layer evaluates

When I compile this LLVM IR…. @0 = private constant [19 x i8] c"V4main10Brightness\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_typeref, regular, no_dead_strip" @1 = private constant [9 x i8] c"Vs5UInt8\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_typeref, regular, no_dead_strip" @2 = private constant [18 x i8] c"currentBrightness\00", section "__TEXT,__swift3_reflstr,

Hi, The compilation of the following code void f(int *a, int b[], int n) { int i; for(i=0; i< n; ++i) a[i] = b[i]; } gives the IR: define void @f(i32* nocapture %a, i32* nocapture %b, i32 %n) nounwind { %1 = icmp sgt i32 %n, 0 br i1 %1, label %.lr.ph, label %._crit_edge .lr.ph: ; preds = %0 %tmp = zext i32 %n to i64 br label %2 ;

Hello all, I am developing an out-of-tree backend for a unique simd processor and I'm looking for a bit of help. In my current design, it's possible for a case to arise where I decide during instruction legalization that a fixed-sized array of vectors which has been initially allocated on the stack needs to be lowered into the vector register file. I have this design working for the case

Hi, I''m new to Rails. Have read the Agile book. Working on new app, its going well. Now, I am at a crossroads. I need to choose a bbs for my site The significance for rails development is that I want to have single sign on between both my Rails app and my forum. I was just about to work on integrating the Rails SaltedLoginGenerator into my rails app when I read this post

Hi, All, Thanks for your answer ahead of time. I plug in an new pass into LLVM to insert one line of code to each BB for printing current BB number. I insert this pass in the Instrumentation phase. But after code generation, I found the total number of BB is different with the number shown in Assembly code. For example, when I traverse all BBs during the instrumentation phase, there are 30000.

Gang, I'm tasked with direct object generation for Mips and am trying to not hack the code. I how exactly does one set an expression to be PC relative and if the compiler can resolve it, not produce a relocation? In our case, the backend produces an expression for the branch which is the target label. I make a call from the .td for the branch instruction which calls a routine in

Matheus, The ARM backend reports these kinds of errors using FatalError method of MCContext. You can see some examples in ARMAsmBackend.cpp (search for "out of range pc-relative fixup value"). -David From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Matheus Almeida Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 5:37 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu

Showing the value for the fixup requires full object code layout and relaxation, which isn't done is the text-to-text path. --Owen On Sep 12, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote: > When I use llvm-mc’s ‘-show-encoding’, it only goes as far as printing “fixups”: > > > $ echo -e "adr r0, lbl\nnop\nlbl:" | llvm-mc -triple=thumbv7

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 10:59 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 2/16/2016 7:04 AM, Jun Koi via llvm-dev wrote: > >> >> I am trying to undertand which code in LLVM patches the fixups generated >> by assembler. >> >> > What do you mean exactly? The actual machine code is generated by > MCCodeEmitter, for