search for: aby

Well, I've compiled and installed Kernel 2.4.9-37 uniprocessor. I've made ocfs setup using version 1.0.9-9 uniprocessor. I've generated ocfs.conf using ocfstool. When I start ocfs using /etc/init.d/ocfs start, I receive the following errors: [root@RAC1 root]# /etc/init.d/ocfs start Loading OCFS: /sbin/insmod ocfs node_name=RAC1.localdomain ip_address=192.168.61 2 ip_port=7000

> On Jan 6, 2020, at 14:29, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 5:58 AM Zakk <zakk0610 at gmail.com <mailto:zakk0610 at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> 於 2020年1月6日 週一 下午2:23寫道： > If this is something that can vary per

Hi all, I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so far alongside with some questions. - In PPCSubtarget.h there's DarwinABI, SVR4ABI and ELFv2ABI. - The CodeGenerator documentation claims that the AIX PowerPC ABI is followed (with some deviations). Is this refering to the DarwinABI? -

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ulrich Weigand" <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> > To: "David Wiberg" <dwiberg at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:29:22 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PowerPC] ABI questions > > Hi David, > > > I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the

David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> 於 2020年1月6日 週一 下午2:23寫道： > If this is something that can vary per file in a compilation and resolve > correctly when one object file is built with one ABI and another object > file is built with a different ABI (that seems to be antithetical to the > concept of "ABI" Though) - then it should be a subtarget feature. > > ABI is

> On Jan 7, 2020, at 13:57, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Daniel Sanders <daniel_l_sanders at apple.com <mailto:daniel_l_sanders at apple.com>> wrote: > > >> On Jan 6, 2020, at 14:29, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:27 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:18 PM Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jan 7, 2020, at 13:57, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 6, 2020 at 6:05 PM Daniel Sanders

Hi all. There are two steps in LTO codegen so the problem is how to pass ABI info into LTO code generator. The easier way is pass -target-abi via option to LTO codegen, but there is linking issue when linking two bitcodes generated by different -mabi option. (see https://reviews.llvm.org/D71387#1792169) Usually the ABI info for a file is derived from target triple, mcpu or -mabi, but in RISC-V,

Right. I think that's what we ended up doing rather than a more general attribute on the module itself. *shrugs* Probably ok? I'd probably prefer not to have to have target code to do the evaluation if possible, but everything is weird and an edge case - mips abis more than some :) -eric On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 8:58 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I should

I also work on the RISC-V backend, and have been doing a little work on the ELF psABI document for RISC-V. I agree that, conceptually, the psABI choice should be in the module metadata. Zakk, however, has discovered a phase ordering issue within LLVM that relates to this approach. The phase ordering problem is that the LTO backend is currently setup without interrogating the current module for

Hello Ulrich, Thank you for a good explanation of the different variants. 2014-07-30 21:29 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com>: > Hi David, > >> I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC >> backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so >> far alongside with some questions. > >

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 14:32, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > AFAICT it's an OpenMP link error (that I got when running > "test-release.sh" > > with -openmp). > > Right. In that case, don't worry too much. > > The default release

David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 於 2020年1月11日 週六 上午2:03寫道： > Ah, OK - thanks for walking me through that. > > Fair enough, I think I understand the issue/tradeoff now - and that the > other module level metadata don't currently influence the target > configuration at this level? > > I'm not sure, I only know that the target-abi is decided

On Sun, Nov 22, 2015 at 8:09 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 22 November 2015 at 03:59, Brian Cain <brian.cain at gmail.com> wrote: > > Should I expect the "-openmp" to work for this RC? > > Only if it worked before on the target you're building to in 3.7.0. > Ok, I'll check if I can get it to work on 3.7.0. > >

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 2:03 AM, Matheus Almeida <Matheus.Almeida at imgtec.com> wrote: >> Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS ABI document download link just like the ISA docs? > It's something we're considering to do and the documents should be available at some point in the [hopefully] not too distant future. > >> then why GCC disagree with

David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> 於 2020年1月14日 週二 上午2:15寫道： > > > On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 6:12 AM Zakk <zakk0610 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> 於 2020年1月11日 週六 >> 上午2:03寫道： >> >>> Ah, OK - thanks for walking me through that. >>> >>> Fair enough, I

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Anton Korobeynikov <asl at math.spbu.ru>wrote: > Hi Eric, > > > From my perspective Win32 is the windows ABI and mingw and cygwin are > their own ABIs > No. They are using Windows Platform ABI for almost everything (e.g. > calling API, C runtime, etc.). At least mingw does. The differences > are exactly in unspecified area (e.g.

On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM Sam Elliott via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > To follow up on this issue: > > Our plan is still to encode `target-abi` into the module flags for RISC-V > LLVM IR modules. As was pointed out earlier in this thread, the function > lowering in Clang is slightly different for the ABIs which support hardware > floating point.

On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 3:04 PM Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 2:56 PM David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On Mon, Jan 20, 2020 at 8:05 AM Sam Elliott via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >>> To follow up on this issue:

Thank you very much for your information and documents! Why Imagination Technologies do not offer the latest MIPS ABI document download link just like the ISA docs? If they thought no much people interested in that doc, they had to make greate effort on compiler like GCC,LLVM by themself,then why GCC disagree with some MIPS ABI, it should be freely designed by MIPS ABI designer and compiler