search for: bcond

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 16.48.53 WEST Tom Callaway wrote: > There are a few of those, but not many. Hi Tom, I noticed that for example in R-assertthat you have used the bcond: %bcond_with check would not it be better to use bootstrap instead to take advantage of: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping I am asking for curiosity since from now on we will need to do this dance once a year for the releases that we deem worth (I would e...

...def> = SETHIi 1856 %reg1732<def> = ORri %G0, 1 %reg1733<def> = SLLrr %reg1732, %reg1729 %reg1734<def> = ORri %reg1731, 1 %reg1735<def> = ANDrr %reg1733, %reg1734 %reg1736<def> = SUBCCri %reg1735, 0, %ICC<imp-def> BCOND <BB#3>, 9, %ICC<imp-use> BA <BB#53> Successors according to CFG: BB#3 BB#53 BB#3: derived from LLVM BB %bb1 Predecessors according to CFG: BB#315 %reg1740<def> = ANDri %reg1067, 255 %reg1741<def> = SUBCCri %reg1740, 1, %ICC<imp-def&g...

Hi, Chris > That is target independent code, so you should not put sparc specific changes there.  It sounds like one of the sparc-specific target hooks is wrong. Since sparc does not provide any hooks for operation of branches (e.g. AnalyzeBranch and friends) it might be possible that generic codegen code is broken in absence of these hooks. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty

On Friday, 26 June 2020 10.47.13 WEST I?aki Ucar wrote: > I used bcond locally and wrongly assumed that fedpkg build would > support --with BCOND and --without BCOND. Instead, the way to activate > it is to change to "%bcond_with check" and then revert to > "%bcond_without check". The only difference with bootstrap is that > "boots...

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 11:36, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt> wrote: > > On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 16.48.53 WEST Tom Callaway wrote: > > There are a few of those, but not many. > > Hi Tom, > I noticed that for example in R-assertthat you have used the bcond: > > %bcond_with check > > would not it be better to use bootstrap instead to take advantage of: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bootstrapping > > I am asking for curiosity since from now on we will need to do this dance once > a year for the rel...

...t; = ORri %G0, 1 > %L3<def> = SLLrr %L6<kill>, %L3<kill> > %L5<def> = ORri %L5<kill>, 1 > %L3<def> = ANDrr %L3<kill>, %L5<kill> > %L3<def,dead> = SUBCCri %L3<kill>, 0, %ICC<imp-def> > BCOND <BB#8>, 9, %ICC<imp-use,kill> > NOP > BA <BB#68> > NOP > > which leads MachineBasicBlock::isOnlyReachableByFallthrough() to > return TRUE for BB#8, since the final NOP is not a 'barrier > instruction', and so the label is skipp...

On Fri, 26 Jun 2020 at 12:09, Jos? Ab?lio Matos <jamatos at fc.up.pt> wrote: > > On Friday, 26 June 2020 10.47.13 WEST I?aki Ucar wrote: > > I used bcond locally and wrongly assumed that fedpkg build would > > support --with BCOND and --without BCOND. Instead, the way to activate > > it is to change to "%bcond_with check" and then revert to > > "%bcond_without check". The only difference with bootstrap is that &...

...eof x_value) < 1) + sleep(1); dstate_setinfo("ups.mfr", "%s", "Tripp Lite"); @@ -365,57 +352,111 @@ void upsdrv_shutdown(void) void upsdrv_updateinfo(void) { char buf[256]; - int bp; - float bv; + int bp, volt, temp, load, vmax, vmin, stest, len; + int bcond, lstate, tstate, mode; + float bv, freq; + + len = send_cmd(":D\r", buf, sizeof buf); + if (len != 21) { + ser_comm_fail("Data command failed: [%d] bytes != 21 bytes.", len); + dstate_datastale(); + return; + } + + volt = hex2d(buf + 2, 2); + temp = (int)(hex2d(buf + 6, 2)*0...

...1 >> %L3<def> = SLLrr %L6<kill>, %L3<kill> >> %L5<def> = ORri %L5<kill>, 1 >> %L3<def> = ANDrr %L3<kill>, %L5<kill> >> %L3<def,dead> = SUBCCri %L3<kill>, 0, %ICC<imp-def> >> BCOND <BB#8>, 9, %ICC<imp-use,kill> >> NOP >> BA <BB#68> >> NOP >> >> which leads MachineBasicBlock::isOnlyReachableByFallthrough() to return TRUE for BB#8, since the final NOP is not a 'barrier instruction', and so the label is s...

There is format in sparc <pre> subcc %r1, %r2, %r3 bne .label </pre> I want instruction like this <pre> bne %r1, %r2, .label </pre> </BR> I am referring to sparc code for this implementation (llvm-3.1).</BR></BR> 1. Should I change the SPBranch and BCOND structs in .td file.</BR> 2. Should I change BuildMI constructs in SparcInstrInfo::InsertBranch() function in SparcInstrInfo.cpp</BR> Please help me. I am referring LLVM 3.1.</BR> Vikram -- View this message in context: http://llvm.1065342.n5.nabble.com/subcc-problem-wr...

On Tuesday, 23 June 2020 16.10.07 WEST I?aki Ucar wrote: > 3) For all packages, either merge master into F32 or just increase the > release version and send builds to that side tag *in order*. The part that worries me is the *in order*. :-) Do we need to do bootstrap builds that are later replaced by the real builds? Because other than that it is business as usual. :-) -- Jos? Ab?lio

...%L3<def> = SLLrr %L6<kill>, %L3<kill> >>> %L5<def> = ORri %L5<kill>, 1 >>> %L3<def> = ANDrr %L3<kill>, %L5<kill> >>> %L3<def,dead> = SUBCCri %L3<kill>, 0, %ICC<imp-def> >>> BCOND <BB#8>, 9, %ICC<imp-use,kill> >>> NOP >>> BA <BB#68> >>> NOP >>> >>> which leads MachineBasicBlock::isOnlyReachableByFallthrough() to return TRUE for BB#8, since the final NOP is not a 'barrier instruction', an...

...is); case ISD::VAARG: return LowerVAARG(Op, DAG); case ISD::DYNAMIC_STACKALLOC: return LowerDYNAMIC_STACKALLOC(Op, DAG, *************** *** 3052,3057 **** --- 3073,3085 ---- case SP::SELECT_CC_DFP_FCC: case SP::SELECT_CC_QFP_FCC: return expandSelectCC(MI, BB, SP::FBCOND); + case SP::EH_SJLJ_SETJMP32ri: + case SP::EH_SJLJ_SETJMP32rr: + return emitEHSjLjSetJmp(MI, BB); + case SP::EH_SJLJ_LONGJMP32rr: + case SP::EH_SJLJ_LONGJMP32ri: + return emitEHSjLjLongJmp(MI, BB); + } } *************** *** 3114,3119 **** --- 3142,3352 ---- return BB;...