search for: addeqs

Hello, on the problems cross-building compiler-rt: Tried to follow https://llvm.org/docs/HowToCrossCompileBuiltinsOnArm.html which lead to this cmake: cmake -G "Ninja" ../llvm/projects/compiler-rt/ -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_BUILTINS=ON -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_SANITIZERS=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_XRAY=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_LIBFUZZER=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_PROFILE=OFF

I am currently trying to compile a pretty simple program to work on an experimental board. It contains an (FPGA-version of) an ARMv4 processor. So basically, I try this (on my Ubuntu 18.04.1 LTS): clang -v --target=arm-none-eabi -c barehello.c -o barehelloCLANG.o clang -v --target=arm-none-eabi -c io.c -o io.o clang -v --target=arm-none-eabi barehelloCLANG.o io.o -o helloCLANGstatic -static

Hello again! Tried out the small Hello World Setup, worked as intended: root at christian-forschung-virtual-machine:/home/progs# clang -v --target=arm-linux-gnueabihf hello.c -o hello -fuse-ld=lld clang version 8.0.0 (https://git.llvm.org/git/clang.git/ a152c7a4b7ba8f4cb9532ead9a38a7121db43d50) (https://git.llvm.org/git/llvm.git/ 1959ce6f3e01241919968ac1911fd45660239d23) Target:

Hello Peter and Lists, thanks a lot, that way it worked out! The final cmake was cmake -G "Ninja" ../llvm/projects/compiler-rt/ -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_BUILTINS=ON -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_SANITIZERS=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_XRAY=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_LIBFUZZER=OFF -DCOMPILER_RT_BUILD_PROFILE=OFF -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=/usr/local/myclang/bin/clang -DCMAKE_AR=/usr/local/myclang/bin/llvm-ar

Hello again Christian, I've posted https://reviews.llvm.org/D55709 to see if we can get the documentation on how to cross-compile compiler-rt improved. I'll be out of office until next year so I may be a bit slow to respond to any follow ups. Peter On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:10, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > > Hello Christian, > > I've just

Hello Christian, I've put some comments inline, On Sun, 3 Feb 2019 at 13:11, Christian Richter <christian.richter at hsu-hh.de> wrote: > > Hello again, > > so after I successfully build the compiler-rt for armv6 I tried to > actually use it in compiling a small helloworld for a baremetal arm > (consisting of barehelloCLANG.c and a small io.h + io.c) , but the >

Hello Christian, I'd expect that adding the library paths (-L) from gcc -v should fix the unable to find -lc, -lm but it won't fix the -lclang_rt.builtins-armv6m.a . To get clang_rt.builtins-armv6m.a you will need to cross compile compiler-rt for v6m and copy it to /usr/local/myclang/lib/clang/8.0.0/lib/baremetal . Beware that building compiler-rt for v6m does need quite a bit of fighting

Hi all, I am using LLVM compiler and CodeGen for generating ARM binaries. I was going through the code for ARM backend. I noticed that the ARM Condition field( Bits 31-28) is generated by converting the conditions used in icmp and branch. For example, if I have following C Code int a,b,c,d; c = a+b; if(c==0) d = a + 10; Then I get ( Assembly Instructions with opcodes only) add *cmp*

Hello Christian, I reran my script with a similar cmake command to yours. After the build finished the following command from the build directory gave me: find . -name \*builtins.a ./lib/clang/9.0.0/armv6m-none-eabi/lib/libclang_rt.builtins.a ./lib/clang/9.0.0/armv7m-none-eabi/lib/libclang_rt.builtins.a ./lib/clang/9.0.0/armv7em-none-eabi/lib/libclang_rt.builtins.a I hope you see something like

On Jul 14, 2008, at 12:59 PM, kapil anand wrote: > Hi all, > > I am using LLVM compiler and CodeGen for generating ARM binaries. > > I was going through the code for ARM backend. I noticed that the ARM > Condition field( Bits 31-28) is generated by converting the > conditions used in icmp and branch. For example, if I have following > C Code > > int a,b,c,d;

Hi Evan, Thanks for the answers. I had few more queries though. 1. As far as I was able to understand the Codegen infrastructure, ARMInstrInfo.td file has complete description of the instructions which modify the status flags. For example, we have description for both ADD and ADDS. But the problem is that in LLVM, we have a single "ADD" Instruction. Thus when we do getDesc(add), we get

On Jul 14, 2008, at 5:10 PM, kapil anand wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Thanks for the answers. I had few more queries though. > > 1. As far as I was able to understand the Codegen infrastructure, > ARMInstrInfo.td file has complete description of the instructions > which modify the status flags. For example, we have description for > both ADD and ADDS. But the problem is

...rs become available on FreeBSD. That's unfortunately not really the case, though. For example, all of the VFP instructions use newer mnemonics, and the predicated condition code setting arithmetic instructions have changed the order of the 's' and 'cc' suffices (e.g., addseq vs. addeqs). I suspect we'll care about all of them, as we're wanting to handle userspace apps, not just kernel code, here, right? This is the system assembler that's too old. If so, the best answer is to teach the assembler the new mnemonics. To help with that, the majority of the work for v7 w...

...rs become available on FreeBSD. That's unfortunately not really the case, though. For example, all of the VFP instructions use newer mnemonics, and the predicated condition code setting arithmetic instructions have changed the order of the 's' and 'cc' suffices (e.g., addseq vs. addeqs). > > I suspect we'll care about all of them, as we're wanting to handle userspace apps, not just kernel code, here, right? This is the system assembler that's too old. > > If so, the best answer is to teach the assembler the new mnemonics. To help with that, the majority...

Hi, I have one more query regarding the LLVM representations. In LLVM Infrastructure, "label" is defined as Primitive type. So, is there any way of using a variable of Type Label in some arithmetic operation or in "bitcast" instruction. I tried the following code: *label %X1: X1: %y = bitcast label %X1 to i32 %tmp1 = add i32 %y,2* llvm-as gave me an error that:

On 22 June 2011 16:50, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: >> This sounds like a dead end as newer binutils are GPLv3. > > Yeah, that's definitely a very real concern and a big motivation to get the MC based asm parser whipped into usable shape. We're much more in control of our own destiny then. So, how do we solve the problem until then? cheers, --renato

On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:39 AM, Damjan Marion wrote: > > On Jun 22, 2011, at 5:29 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > >> >> On Jun 22, 2011, at 7:22 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >> >>> On 22 June 2011 14:33, Damjan Marion <damjan.marion at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Problem is that in case when old binutils are used (in my case freebsd is using old one due to

...rs become available on FreeBSD. That's unfortunately not really the case, though. For example, all of the VFP instructions use newer mnemonics, and the predicated condition code setting arithmetic instructions have changed the order of the 's' and 'cc' suffices (e.g., addseq vs. addeqs). >> >> I suspect we'll care about all of them, as we're wanting to handle userspace apps, not just kernel code, here, right? This is the system assembler that's too old. >> >> If so, the best answer is to teach the assembler the new mnemonics. To help with tha...