similar to: [PATCH] linux/x86-64: fix unwind annotations

On 19/08/2009, at 4:00 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, Nathan > >> or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there >> any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect >> calls? > Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not Ok, so configure might be the way to go then, maybe something

Hi Devs, consider below testcase $cat test.cpp constexpr int product() { return 10*20; } int main() { const int x = product(); return 0; } $./clang test.cpp -std=c++11 -S $./clang -v clang version 9.0.0 Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu $cat test.s main: .cfi_startproc # %bb.0: pushq %rbp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 .cfi_offset %rbp, -16 movq

Hello, With GCC, it is possible to compile GIMPLE from an object file back to assembly. With Dragonegg, it seems to be a NOP. (See below for a comparison.) This appears it could be a nice way to mix the strengths of GCC and LLVM. If it worked.. Should it? Thanks, Marcus [mdaniels at dn002 dragonegg]$ cat hello.c #include <stdio.h> int hello () { printf ("Hello

Sorry I missed that important detail. The relevant part of the command line is: -cc1 -S -triple i386-pc-win32 I don't expect it matters if it's for Windows or Linux in this case. On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Can't say I've observed that behavior (though I'm just building from > top-of-tree rather than 6.0,

On 02.03.2012, at 09:20, Konstantin Vladimirov wrote: > Hi, > > In GCC there is one useful option -dp (or -dP for more verbose output) > to annotate assembler with instruction patterns, that was used when > assembler was generated. For example: The internal "-mllvm -show-mc-inst" option is probably as close as you can get. $ clang -S -O0 test.c -mllvm -show-mc-inst -o

This apparently was a copy-and-paste oversight. Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/head-xen.S +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/head-xen.S @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ NEXT_PAGE(hypercall_page) CFI_REL_OFFSET rcx,0 .skip 2 /* push %r11 */ CFI_ADJUST_CFA_OFFSET 8 - CFI_REL_OFFSET rcx,0 + CFI_REL_OFFSET r11,0 .skip 5 /* mov $#,%eax */ .skip 2 /* syscall */ .skip

Hi, In GCC there is one useful option -dp (or -dP for more verbose output) to annotate assembler with instruction patterns, that was used when assembler was generated. For example: double test(long long s) { return s; } gcc -S -dp -O0 test.c test: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushq %rbp # 18 *pushdi2_rex64/1 [length = 1] .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 movq %rsp, %rbp # 19 *movdi_1_rex64/2

Hi, Thank you, it is just what I need. But... it doesn't work for me: $ clang -S -O0 test.c -mllvm -show-mc-inst error: unknown argument: '-show-mc-inst' $ clang --version clang version 1.1 (branches/release_27) Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix May be I need LLVM with higher version, or mention something in configure options? On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 4:32 PM,

$ gcc -S test.c $ cat test.s .file "test.c" .text .globl __GI___testfunc .hidden __GI___testfunc .type __GI___testfunc, @function __GI___testfunc: .LFB0: .cfi_startproc pushq %rbp .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 .cfi_offset 6, -16 movq %rsp, %rbp .cfi_def_cfa_register 6 movl $0, %eax popq %rbp .cfi_def_cfa 7, 8

Even if you can't implement such an algorithm sanely, ISTM that auto-generating this code from a table (or whatever), and choosing canonical results (to avoid a fixpoint issue), rather than what seems to be hand-additions of every possible set of minimizations on three variables, is still a better solution, no? At least then you wouldn't have human errors, and a growing file that makes

Thanks Sean for the reference. I will go through it and see if i can implement it for generic boolean expression minimization. Regards, Suyog On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Re-adding the mailing list (remember to hit "reply all") > > > On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 9:36 AM, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Duncan, David, Sean. Thanks for your reply. > It'd be interesting if you could find a design that also treated these > the same: > > (B ^ A) | ((A ^ B) ^ C) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((B ^ C) ^ A) -> (A ^ B) | C > (B ^ A) | ((C ^ A) ^ B) -> (A ^ B) | C > > I.e., `^` is also associative. Agree with Duncan on including associative operation too.

On Apr 16, 2008, at 10:07 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > Hello Dale, > > this is an updated version of the tail call optimization patch for > powerpc. could you have a look at it? > > i added code to support ppc64 (untested, will try to get access to > ppc64 on a friend's machine). > incorporated evan's formatting suggestions. ;) > > will run another round

plain text document attachment (xx-paravirt-irqs.patch) Interrupt updates for paravirt ops. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt srostedt@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Index: clean-start/arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S =================================================================== --- clean-start.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S +++

plain text document attachment (xx-paravirt-irqs.patch) Interrupt updates for paravirt ops. Signed-off-by: Steven Rostedt srostedt@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com> Index: clean-start/arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S =================================================================== --- clean-start.orig/arch/x86_64/ia32/ia32entry.S +++

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > More nitpicks: > ... > No need for else here. :-) Done > SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; > > Just change last statement to > int SPDiff = (int)... Done > > +bool > +PPCTargetLowering::IsEligibleForTailCallOptimization(SDOperand Call, > +

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:58 AM, Arnold Schwaighofer wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 12:30 AM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> > wrote: >> More nitpicks: >> ... >> No need for else here. :-) > Done >> SPDiff = (int)CallerMinReservedArea - (int)ParamSize; >> >> Just change last statement to >> int SPDiff = (int)... > Done >>

Hello, Nathan > or if it should be a configure test, which might be safer. Are there > any x86 platforms (other than apple) that don't need PLT-indirect calls? Yes, mingw. However just tweaking the define is not enough - we're not loading address of GOT into ebx before the call (on 32 bit ABIs) thus the call will be to nowhere. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of

On 16 January 2018 at 13:41, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > bar: > > .cfi_def_cfa_offset 16 > epilogue > > _Unwind_Resume > > > > The lookup phase of exception handling is fine. However, something goes > wrong in cleanup phase. The reason is the unwinder evaluates CFI directives > until _Unwind_Resume, and `.cfi_def_cfa_offset

Dear All, I'm getting the following error on Mac OS X when compiling C++ code in the LLVM test suite: g++ Output/minisat.llc.s -o Output/minisat.llc -lm -m64 -fomit-frame-pointer -mdynamic-no-pic -lstdc++ -lm Output/minisat.llc.s:5:Unknown pseudo-op: .cfi_startproc Output/minisat.llc.s:8:Unknown pseudo-op: .cfi_def_cfa_offset Output/minisat.llc.s:8:Rest of line ignored. 1st junk