search for: aarch

Hi, I am trying to compile LLVM for AARCH (VMA=42), here my cmake command: cmake -G "Ninja" -D SANITIZER_AARCH64_VMA=42 .. But I get the following warning: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CMake Warning: Manually-specified variables were not used by the project: SA...

T.D.Lee@durham.ac.uk wrote: > > > But we'd like to go one step further and have the return code from preexec > be used to continue or abort the connection being established. The script > above would be modified to generate this return code. > > Looking through the source code (smbd/service.c), it doesn't seem to check > the return code (calling smbrun to do the

...ed? Theoretically, it should be better since it enables pre-RA resource balancing and the second latency heuristic, right? It should also be better to take from two sides the best candidate, instead of just from one side, exposing the heuristics to more nodes and finding more good candidates. AArch, AMDGPU and PowerPC seem to be the only ones enabling bidirectional scheduling, which indicates that bottom-up is still the norm. So, I then would like to ask what is the general advice on when to enable it? What were the original intentions behind this? Any particular type of target that would...

...>> And #ifdef it for each arch? Builtin would be much more handy. > Actually no #ifdef is required with Jakob's suggestion (works the same > in both clang and gcc). > It may works for both GCC and clang, it does not means it will works with every arch linux supports (ARM, PPC, AArch, …) > However the builtin is indeed nicer, easier to read and much more in > keeping with the other builtins... > > Behan > - Jean-Daniel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/2...

Hello, So, I have this testcase: void f(int n, int x[]) { if (n < 0) return; int a[n]; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) a[i] = x[n - i - 1]; for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) x[i] = a[i] + 1; } that, compiled with -O1/-Os for AArch64 and X86, generates machine code, which fails to properly restore the stack pointer upon function return. The testcase allocates a VLA, thus clang generates calls to `llvm.stacksave` and `llvm.stackrestore`. The latter call is lowered to `mov sp, x2`, however this move does not affect decisions m...

...gt; > Cheers, > Florian > <http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev> > Thanks for fixing this Florian. Now that this is no longer blocking, are there other concerns over enabling PI by default? Evgeny, did you get a chance to look into the code-size regressions on AArch targets? What do you think about moving ahead with this? Thanks Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180129/4cf0cd3b/attachment.html>

...or each arch? Builtin would be much more handy. >> Actually no #ifdef is required with Jakob's suggestion (works the same >> in both clang and gcc). >> > > It may works for both GCC and clang, it does not means it will works > with every arch linux supports (ARM, PPC, AArch, …) True enough. Which is indeed another argument for __builtin_stack_pointer(). That point is precisely one of the reasons that we're pushing for this addition. Behan -- Behan Webster behanw at converseincode.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... U...

..., int x[]) { > if (n < 0) > return; > > int a[n]; > > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) > a[i] = x[n - i - 1]; > > for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) > x[i] = a[i] + 1; > } > > that, compiled with -O1/-Os for AArch64 and X86, generates machine code, which > fails to properly restore the stack pointer upon function return. > > The testcase allocates a VLA, thus clang generates calls to `llvm.stacksave` and > `llvm.stackrestore`. The latter call is lowered to `mov sp, x2`, however this > move do...

...g/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 That bug should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320199 Cheers, Florian Thanks for fixing this Florian. Now that this is no longer blocking, are there other concerns over enabling PI by default? Evgeny, did you get a chance to look into the code-size regressions on AArch targets? What do you think about moving ahead with this? Thanks Sean -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180129/513c68bf/attachment.html>

WARNING: This is not compatible with the previous lz4 patchset. If you''re using experimental compression that isn''t in mainline kernels, be prepared to backup and restore or decompress before upgrading, and have backups in case it eats data (which appears not to be a problem any more, but has been during development). These patches add lz4 and lz4hc compression

...ds for the ELF binary format (for GNU as and GNU ld bugs/unimplemented features in older versions). When the user does not use GNU as or GNU ld, don't make certain pessimized MC/CodeGen decisions. See the patch's summary for details and various hacks I've found for multiple targets (X86/AArch/PowerPC/Mips). Now I recall the patch as I ponder on using the option to enable better garbage collection for .gcc_except_table >From the review: jhenderson said: "This looks reasonable to me, but I don't know the surrounding code well enough to be comfortable LGTM-ing it. Sorry!&quo...

Hi, On 13/11/2017 14:47, Evgeny Astigeevich via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Graham, > > I created a bug report with a reproducer for the failures I’ve got: > https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=35288 > That bug should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/rL320199 Cheers, Florian

On 11/05/13 09:26, Konstantin Tokarev wrote: > > 11.10.2013, 01:39, "Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: >> On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com> wrote: >> >>> One of the issues the LLVMLinux project is having is with the use of >>> named registers in the Linux kernel code. The kernel uses

Hi, so here it is, LZ4 compression method inside btrfs. The patchset is based on top of current Chris'' for-linus + Andi''s snappy implementation + the fixes from Li Zefan. Passes xfstests and stresstests. I haven''t measured performance on wide range of hardware or workloads, rather wanted to publish the patches before I get distracted again. I''d like to ask

11.10.2013, 01:39, "Jakob Stoklund Olesen" <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: > On Oct 10, 2013, at 12:32 PM, Behan Webster <behanw at converseincode.com> wrote: > >>  One of the issues the LLVMLinux project is having is with the use of >>  named registers in the Linux kernel code. The kernel uses something like >>  this in order to assign a C variable name to a

...s doscalls.c */ + if (utb.modtime == (time_t)0 || utb.modtime == (time_t)-1) + ; + else { + if (utb.actime == (time_t)0 || utb.actime == (time_t)-1) + utb.actime = utb.modtime; + utime(lname, &utb); + } + } } if (archive_level >= 2 && (attr & aARCH)) { @@ -555,7 +623,7 @@ get_total_time_ms += this_time; get_total_size += nread; - DEBUG(2,("(%g kb/s) (average %g kb/s)\n", + DEBUG(0,("(%g kb/s) (average %g kb/s)\n", nread / (1.024*this_time + 1.0e-4), get_total_size / (1.024*get_total_time_ms))); } @@...

Hi, I am extending LLVM for HPC applications. As one of them, I am trying to make MachinePipeliner available on AArch64 + Scalable Vector Extension environment. MachinePipeliner is currently used only by Hexagon CPU. Since it is a very portable implementation, I think that it will actually work just by adding a little code for many CPUs(See Code [2]). The current MachinePipeliner is written on the premise that D...

....0-rc2-x86_64-apple-darwin.tar.xz 26d616e1355dc0802f90babbd5ea0b72abc0c0bb LLVM-3.9.0-rc2-win32.exe 42363aeaff395d442f418d77b542a088b5b0658b LLVM-3.9.0-rc2-win64.exe Thanks, Hans On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Diana Picus <diana.picus at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi, > > All good on AArch64 - we've uploaded the binaries. > > Regards, > Diana > > On 19 August 2016 at 04:51, Hans Wennborg via Release-testers > <release-testers at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Dear testers, >> >> 3.9.0-rc2 was just tagged from the 3.9 branch at r279183. >&gt...

...i all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE in hypercall parameters with XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM. On x86 and ia64 things should stay exactly the same. On ARM all the unsigned long and the guest pointers that are members of a struct become s...

...i all, this patch series makes the necessary changes to make sure that the current ARM hypercall ABI can be used as-is on 64 bit ARM platforms: - it defines xen_ulong_t as uint64_t on ARM; - it introduces a new macro to handle guest pointers, called XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM (that has size 4 bytes on aarch and is going to have size 8 bytes on aarch64); - it replaces all the occurrences of XEN_GUEST_HANDLE in hypercall parameters with XEN_GUEST_HANDLE_PARAM. On x86 and ia64 things should stay exactly the same. On ARM all the unsigned long and the guest pointers that are members of a struct become s...