search for: avre

Thank you for both of your input. Yes, I try to cross-compile for AVR, the simple ATMEGA328P used in every Arduino Uno. My main motivation being that I hope to be able to use a couple of STL containers, <functional> and <type_traits> on the MCU. Not sure though if this can be reached by going via the clang route. Getting back to the compilation: when I run clang with both both

Hi everyone, I've been wondering how to correctly build clang/LLVM for the AVR target architecture. Unfortunately documentation is very scarce (or outdated or I didn't find it) and while I've been able to build clang/LLVM for AVR I'm still falling short of compiling an actual binary for the MCU. Here are the steps I've undertaken so far: git clone

Am 04.03.20 um 11:16 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this > should be simple. > > Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so > on stored? > > > At the moment, this is not implemented in LLVM; these details are left > to the frontend. Clang/compiler-rt does not

Thanks! The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this should be simple. Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so on stored? -- Wilhelm Am 04.03.20 um 11:03 schrieb Dylan McKay: > Hey Wilhelm, > > This should be possible by editing the 'AVRDevices.td' [1]TableGen > definitions to add an entry for the newer chip types.

Hello Leslie, I think we are going to need to know a bit more about the ELF ABI for what looks like the ArcCompact before we can help you. LLD's calculation of P (the place to be relocated) is as it is in the generic ELF specification. The Rel.Offset corresponds to the ELF r_offset field. This is covered by: "For a relocatable file, the value is the byte offset from the beginning of the

Hello, I have successfully build the newest llvm from git source, and I would like to do some experiments on target AVR. Does "make check-all" cover AVR? All I need some extra steps to test AVR? I have neither AVR simulator nor real AVR board connected. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I just found out something strange. Try it out for yourselves. Here goes. Search for any directories under /boot: # find /boot/ -type d /boot/ /boot/grub /boot/lost+found So far so good. Now execute a detailed listing on the results: # find /boot/ -type d -exec ls -l \{} \; total 6203 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 68663 sep 3 2009 config-2.6.18-164.el5 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 1024 avr 6

Am 04.03.20 um 13:28 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > * *The C/C++ function needs to be declared with either the calling > convention avr-interrupt or avr-non-blocking-interrupt.* Skipping > this step will cause regular ret instructions to be emitted for > return-from-subroutine, instead of the required reti for interrupt > handlers. ISRs also have stricter

To those interested in AVR backend additions to LLVM, the LLVM review tools "Phabricator" ( don't ask me to say that 3 times fast ), allows easy searching. Go to http://reviews.llvm.org/ and type in AVR in the search entry. This will give you a list of the commits, and resolutions. From my understanding ( NO Expert ), a large part of the skeleton code has been added. The leave

I'm beginning to use the AVR backend. I ran into the problem, that newer (tiny1, mega0) µC as a tiny1614 are not supported. How do I add these to the AVR backend? Thanks!

How is the llvm-avr backend integration going ? Will it be functional ( experimental ) in the 3.8 release ? Will Clang recognize options for avr ? thanks. Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151218/be23dc42/attachment.html>

I think this is broken in at least one place when legalising the DAG. This llvm ir: %3 = call { i16, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i16(i16 %2, i16 11) Fails to lower correctly on AVR but the problem is, unfortunately, not just coming from the AVR Target code and I am not sure it can be cleanly fixed just there. (But I would be very happy to be proved wrong as I'm very new to this.) The above

> > Should we just make it a normal target? > My only remaining reservation here - the generic DebugInfo tests, which presumably due to an unimplemented 16-bit branch somewhere deep in the llvm-objdump callstack. The AVR backend passes virtually all of the LLVM test suite but these when avr-unknown-unknown is set as the default target. It feels like the inclusion of ~80 XFAILs for these

Hi Leslie, On 20 December 2017 at 10:51, Leslie Zhai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Sorry, I am apprentice of lowRISC, and meet new bug when porting GlobalISel > to RISCV target > https://github.com/xiangzhai/llvm/commit/b3f91ea54d9fee0ef7e73a32c6b8456bbe252811 > > > In file included from >

Hello, I have successfully build the newest llvm from git source, and I would like to do some experiments on target AVR. Does "make check-all" cover AVR? All I need some extra steps to test AVR? I have neither AVR simulator nor real AVR board connected. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 4:18 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> Every few weeks, a change is committed to trunk that breaks the AVR >> buildbot. >> >> A problem presents when commit authors do not fix the build, and just

What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target? Does anyone else have any concerns about doing so? -Chris > On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +better dylanmckay address > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:

Hi Dylan, the following code volatile uint8_t v1; volatile uint8_t v2; __attribute__((interrupt)) void __vector_21(void) { v2 = v1; } produces in C mode: 00000092 <__vector_21>: 92: 80 91 61 00 lds r24, 0x0061 ; 0x800061 <v1> 96: 80 93 60 00 sts 0x0060, r24 ; 0x800060 <__data_end> 9a: 08 95 ret and in C++ mode: 00000074

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The builder isn’t marked as experimental so I think the expectation is that people keep it green and contact the bot owner if they need help figuring out why their change makes it red. That said, it sounds a bit odd to have a non-experimental builder for an experimental backend. >

Hi, There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved. Should we just make it a normal target? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: