[llvm-dev] Need help with code generation

Sat Mar 19 16:01:30 PDT 2016

You're right well, it's just like fputc(stdout, x).
Last thing. Are 4 calls to fputc as fast as a call to fputs with a 4-char string? Or fputs may be faster?
If they're completely equivalent maybe implementing a string printer in the compiler's language is better

> On Mar 19, 2016, at 11:51 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote:
> 
> Yes, you shouldn't have any trouble just declaring and using C functions such as fopen, fclose, puts, fputs, fputc.
> 
> You're likely to find that putc is a macro not a function, in which case you won't be able to use that.
> 
> Depending on whether it's important, if you're running on a Unix-like system then you could save quite a bit of size in your binary by using open(2), close(2), read(2), write(2) directly, as they're not any harder to use. But the C standard library is available in more places.
> 
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Lorenzo Laneve via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> @james
>> Yeah for code generation I figured out that clang doesn't actually use llc, and I already started reading its code to see how it works.
>> For the ld, there's not an "helper" in the llvm library that calls it, is there?
>> By the way, I thought about calling ld with things like execl() or std::system(), I don't know if it's a good idea, I'm always afraid there are better ways than mine!
>> 
>> 
>> @mats
>> Yea, I haven't used C's system calls in my own code yet but if I just have to declare the function puts in the IR modules (e.g.: putc) and then link against libc, am I right?
>> Should I use basic C functions such as putc() and getc(), in my runtime library or is there a more efficient way to set up my runtime library?
>> 
>>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 9:58 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> If you plan on calling C runtime library functions, you probably want to do what I did:
>>> Cheat, and make a libruntime.a (with C functions to do stuff your compiler can't do natively) and then link that using clang or gcc. 
>>> 
>>> https://github.com/Leporacanthicus/lacsap/blob/master/binary.cpp#L124
>>> 
>>> At some point, I plan to replace my runtime library with native Pascal code, at which point I will be able to generate the ELF binary straight from my compiler without the runtime library linking in the C runtime library, but that's not happening anytime real soon. Getting the compiler to compile v5 of Wirth's original Pascal compiler is higher on the list... :)
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Mats
>>> 
>>>> On 19 March 2016 at 20:51, James Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>> Hi Lorenzo,
>>>> 
>>>> Clang doesn't call llc; LLVM is compiled into Clang. Clang does call the system linker though.
>>>> 
>>>> Making your compiler generate *object* code is very simple. Making it fixup that object code and execute it in memory (JIT style) is also simple. Linking it properly and creating a fixed up ELF file is less simple. For that, you need to compile to object (using addPassesToEmitFile() - see llc.cpp) then invoke a linker. Getting that command line right can be quite difficult.
>>>> 
>>>> Rafael, This would be a good usecase for LLD as a library. I heard that this is is an explicit non-goal, which really surprised me. Is that indeed the case?
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> 
>>>> James
>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2016 at 13:32 Lorenzo Laneve via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>> I'd like to make my compiler independent, just like Clang. Doesn't Clang call llc and then system's ld by itself? I don't want my compiler to depend by any other program.
>>>>> I guess there will be a class in the llvm library that generates the object files based on the system's triple and data layout, and then call the system's ld?
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mar 19, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you've created a .bc or a .ll file then the simplest thing is to just give it to clang exactly the same as you would for a .c file. Clang will just Do The Right Thing with it.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> If you don't want to link, then pass flags such as -c to clang as usual.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ---- hello.ll ----
>>>>>> declare i32 @puts(i8*)
>>>>>> @str = constant [12 x i8] c"Hello World\00"
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> define i32 @main() {
>>>>>>   %1 = call i32 @puts(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([12 x i8]* @str, i64 0, i64 0))
>>>>>>   ret i32 0
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> ----------------
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> $ clang hello.ll -o hello && ./hello
>>>>>> warning: overriding the module target triple with x86_64-apple-macosx10.10.0
>>>>>> 1 warning generated.
>>>>>> Hello World
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 3:03 AM, Lorenzo Laneve via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> I wrote my compiler and now it generates LLVM IR modules. Now i’d like to go ahead and make object file and then executable, just like clang does.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What should I have to use to create the object files? and then how do I call the ld? (not llvm-ld, I want my compiler to work like Clang and I read that Clang doesn’t use llvm-ld).
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160320/2cc4a2ed/attachment.html>