search for: david_goodwin

> I will investigate. I'm in the middle of it as well. Best regards, Viktor ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodwin" <david_goodwin at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 2:43 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Heads up! Working on bugpoint >I just checked in my changes to bugpoint and Makefile.programs in the > test suite. These changes shouldn&...

...your plan? > > I have been thinking of using -run-custom and -safe-run-custom > argumants for the cross-tools to keep bugpoint out of knowing any > target details ans such. > > Best regards, > Viktor > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodwin" <david_goodwin at apple.com > > > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:26 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Heads up! Working on bugpoint > > >> Hi Viktor, >> >> I did not see your patches, can you send them a...

...;m looking at adding it to the test-suit and use make to run tests > remotely for cross-compilation (following Evan's suggestion). > > Let's coorddinate our effort. > > Best regards, > Viktor > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Goodwin" <david_goodwin at apple.com> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:23 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] Heads up! Working on bugpoint > > >> I'm starting work on getting bugpoint working with remote execution >> for a...

...nt areas fso far which is great. What's your plan? I have been thinking of using -run-custom and -safe-run-custom argumants for the cross-tools to keep bugpoint out of knowing any target details ans such. Best regards, Viktor ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodwin" <david_goodwin at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 1:26 PM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Heads up! Working on bugpoint > Hi Viktor, > > I did not see your patches, can you send them again. Here are the > changes that I hav...

...lems and make remote execution work. I'm looking at adding it to the test-suit and use make to run tests remotely for cross-compilation (following Evan's suggestion). Let's coorddinate our effort. Best regards, Viktor ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Goodwin" <david_goodwin at apple.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 12:23 PM Subject: [LLVMdev] Heads up! Working on bugpoint > I'm starting work on getting bugpoint working with remote execution > for arm. Is anyone else working on...

Something has changed in the last few days that breaks thumb-2 (and possibly all ARM) assembly output. Some, but not all lines are double- spaced, for example: fstd d13, [sp, #+40] fstd d12, [sp, #+32] fstd d11, [sp, #+24] fstd d10, [sp, #+16] fstd d9, [sp, #+8] fstd d8, [sp] sub sp, sp, #872 mov r4, r1 mov r5, r0 cmp r0, #2 ble LBB1_133 @ entry.bb2.i_crit_edge LBB1_1: @

Hi David On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:00, David Goodwin<david_goodwin at apple.com> wrote: > Something has changed in the last few days that breaks thumb-2 (and possibly > all ARM) assembly output. Some, but not all lines are double-spaced, for > example: How does extra whitespace break the things? -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mat...

It doesn't break the assembler... but it is wrong... and ugly... and many other adjectives. I isolated the change and let the submitter know. David On Jul 17, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi David > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2009 at 02:00, David > Goodwin<david_goodwin at apple.com> wrote: >> Something has changed in the last few days that breaks thumb-2 (and >> possibly >> all ARM) assembly output. Some, but not all lines are double- >> spaced, for >> example: > How does extra whitespace break the things? > > -- >...

I'm starting work on getting bugpoint working with remote execution for arm. Is anyone else working on this? David

Yes. But it is not really being used by most (any?) targets because post-RA scheduling is disabled by default. Also, the existing model is very limited in what types of micro-architectures can be described. I've been extending it to enable scheduling of multi-issue targets, targets with overlapping FU usage, and targets that use and define registers in multiple pipeline stages. See

NE and EQ comparisons should be able to commute their operands. But, for ARM at least, this does not seem to be happening. The first sequence below generates CMN (compare negated) but the second does not (complete test attached). These seem to map to ARMcmpNZ. Where would I look to see if that is marked commutative? %nb = sub i32 0, %b %tmp = icmp ne i32 %a, %nb %nb = sub

Hi, For some 64-bit immediates, ARM can generate a two instruction sequence. For example, for the following code: ; 734439407618 = 0x000000ab00000002 define i64 @f1(i64 %a) { %tmp = sub i64 %a, 734439407618 ret i64 %tmp } We should be able to generate: subs r0, r0, #1 sbc r1, r1, #171 @ 0xab But instead we get: $ llvm-as < %s | llc -march=thumb -mattr=+thumb2 mvn r2, #1

g++ -m32 -c -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings - pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wmissing-format- attribute -Werror -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -Wno-unused - DTARGET_NAME=\"i686-apple-darwin9\" -DNDEBUG -I. -I. -I/tmp/ llvmgcc42.roots/llvmgcc42~obj/src/gcc -I/tmp/llvmgcc42.roots/ llvmgcc42~obj/src/gcc/.

Are these known to be broken right now? I get failure when using either. $ llc -march=arm -print-machineinstrs hw.bc ... BB#0: derived from LLVM BB %entry Live Ins: %LR %R7 %SP<def> = SUBri %SP<kill>, 8, 14, %reg0, %reg0 STR %LR<kill>, %SP, %reg0, 4, 14, %reg0; mem:ST4[0 llc 0x008b3304 PrintStackTrace(void*) + 45 1 llc 0x008b390c

I did make that change to support the following code in ToolRunner.cpp. I found that if I did not explicitly set PWD when invoking bugpoint, then it would not be in the environment. I'm not sure why PWD is not being inherited... perhaps some make weirdness... or bash??? and I don't know how it ever worked before my change. // Full path to the binary. We need to cd to the exec

Using the Thumb-2 target we see that ORN ( a | ^b) and BIC (a & ^b) have similar patterns, as we would expect: defm t2BIC : T2I_bin_irs<"bic", BinOpFrag<(and node:$LHS, (not node: $RHS))>>; defm t2ORN : T2I_bin_irs<"orn", BinOpFrag<(or node:$LHS, (not node: $RHS))>>; Compiling the following three works as expected: %tmp1 = xor i32