search for: andrewl

...warped_autocorrelation_FIX_neon_intr.c:43:37: warning: incompatible pointer types assigning to 'const long *' from 'long long *' [-Wincompatible-pointer-types]     corr_QC_s64x2[ 0 ] = vld1q_s64( corr_QC + offset + 0 );                                     ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /Users/andrewl/android/toolchain-r16b-arm64-v8a/lib64/clang/5.0.300080/include/arm_neon.h:7628:46: note: expanded from macro 'vld1q_s64'   __ret = (int64x2_t) __builtin_neon_vld1q_v(__p0, 35); \                                              ^~~~ silk/fixed/arm/warped_autocorrelation_FIX_neon_intr.c:44:37:...

On 11/30/06, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > The llvm_ostreams, which you take the address of go out of scope very > quickly, and are only stored by address in the bytecode writer, thus > the writers have a pointer to a stack allocated object they are to > write to. This crashes. The attached version...

...over your diff and it would seem to me that additional changes would be needed to be done to some of the LLVM-IR -> DAG stuff to make things fully functional (this could be a bit of supposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > From: Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Union type efforts and ComputeLinearIndex > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 3:55 PM > I posted an i...

...pposition on my part since I do not fully understand all of the code). Code generation actually was supported. See: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20090511/077465.html Namely, look at the code in target data. Andrew > > --- On Sun, 8/2/09, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > >> From: Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Union type efforts and ComputeLinearIndex >> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >> Date: Sunday, August 2, 2009, 3:55 P...

On 2/15/08, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > I'll take a hack at the front end support for > __sync_synchronize after this goes in. This is the gcc side of the patch. Index: gcc/llvm-convert.cpp =================================================================== --- gcc/llvm-convert.cpp (revis...

On 7/9/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > Poor alpha, no code examples or entries in your tables. But that said, it uses a load-locked, store-conditional and has various memory barriers which are sufficient to implement all your proposal. Andrew > On 7/9/07, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com&...

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Torvald Riegel >>> <torvald at se.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote: >>>> On Tuesday 13 July 2010 19:48:25 you...

does that mean .o generated with gcc (.c -> .s and .s -> .o) will not contain llvm ir? i meant, final kernel bitcode ir arch independent and can be JIT with any arch-specific backend. Is it not the case? thanks, ashish On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 10:43 PM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 27, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Ashish Bijlani > <ashish.bijlani at gmail.com> wrote: >> If I use GCC to generate asm-offsets.s file, then the build system go >> ahead but fails when it generates .so files as Andrew pointed out. > > You ha...

On 21 September 2010 18:39, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > Type names don't have meaning.  If you want this not to happen, you > can generate a different opaque type for each type in your language to > prevent merging. Hi Andrew, Why create opaque types to avoid something that should be taken from granted (in a s...

Its good to see that a feature of this nature would be useful to a whole range of people, I wasn't aware of that. On 9 June 2010 22:40, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > My argument amounts to express side tables as side tables in the IR > rather than as an ordering on globals.  I think that would simplify > the backend (a side table is something you discover form the function > rather than having to check another global).  ...

...complaining that "poolalloc.so" was missing. Am I missing anything here? BTW, when I run llvm test, is there a flag that can turn on option to print the test commands in details in addition to just show the test is passed or failed? Thank you Haifeng On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > > Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > > were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc hasn't been yet > > fully updated to re...

Attached is the target independent llvm.atomic.barrier support, as well as alpha and x86 (sse2) support. This matches Chandler's definitions, and the LangRef patch will just restore that. Non-sse2 barrier will be needed, I think it is "lock; mov %esp, %esp", but I'm not sure. Any objections? I'll take a hack at the front end support for __sync_synchronize after this

...est commands in details in addition to just show the test > > is passed or failed? > > > I believe using make VERBOSE=1 will do this. > > -- John T. > > Thank you > > > > Haifeng > > > > > > > > > > On 8/23/07, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > > > >> On 8/23/07, Wojciech Matyjewicz <wmatyjewicz at fastmail.fm> wrote: > >> > >>> Static ID fields in pass classes seem to be lacking definitions (there > >>> were some changes in LLVM core classes and poolalloc...

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > hton and ntoh intrinsics. You can write these portably already; just store to an i32, cast the pointer to i8, read out the bytes, then reconstruct the i32. If I recall correctly, scalarrepl+instcombine should be able to eliminate the abstraction if they have target...

On 11/30/06, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/30/06, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > > The llvm_ostreams, which you take the address of go out of scope very > > quickly, and are only stored by address in the bytecode writer, thus > > the writers have a pointer to a stack allocated object they are to > > write to. This crashes. &...

On Sat, May 14, 2005 at 02:18:26AM +0200, Stefan Strasser wrote: > in case you're interested in having llvm in debian sarge: it was > removed today. I don't know why, but you might want to find out > because sarge is in freeze phase for release next month. Possibly because of these: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?src=llvm I addressed the first one and fixed it in

>> >> I suspect this is due to the recent change by Bill (revision 46747). > > Bill's change only affected darwin IIRC. I don't know that anyone has > built GOMP on linux yet, and OpenMP hasn't been widely tested at all. > I'd suggest using --enable-languages=c,c++ This looks like something is broken on the gcc side of things. Does a simple: void

...i686-pc-linux-gnu" define hidden void @foo() { entry: br label %return return: ; preds = %entry ret void } also works when going to native .o or bytecode. llvm-gcc -v Using built-in specs. Target: i686-pc-linux-gnu Configured with: ../source/configure --prefix=/home/andrewl/Research/cfe-4.2/install --enable-llvm=/home/andrewl/Research/llvm --enable-languages=c,c++ --disable-bootstrap --disable-shared --disable-werror Thread model: posix gcc version 4.2.1 (Based on Apple Inc. build 5546) (LLVM build)

On Wednesday 14 July 2010 17:57:26 Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Andrew Lenharth <andrewl at lenharth.org> wrote: > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 10:26 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Is alignment on a field propagated when the struct is split up? > > > > Irrelevant here; the struct in question only has 4 byte alignment. &g...

in case you're interested in having llvm in debian sarge: it was removed today. I don't know why, but you might want to find out because sarge is in freeze phase for release next month. regards, -- Stefan Strasser