search for: leizhao833

It works. But a follow-up question: why do I have to compile it to thumb mode in order to pass the compilation? Is there a way to make it compile to regular arm mode? Thanks. - Lei On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Everybody, >> >> I recently did a cross-compiling using clang (built with host=x86, target=arm) with the following command: >> >>> clang -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=soft -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi -integrated-as main.c -o...

Sure. Use legal ARM mode syntax for the instruction. Specifically, there is no offset immediate for the ARM mode LDREX instruction. It's illegal syntax to supply one, even if it's zero. -Jim On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: > It works. But a follow-up question: why do I have to compile it to thumb mode in order to pass the compilation? Is there a way to make it compile to regular arm mode? Thanks. > > - Lei > > On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On...

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > I recently did a cross-compiling using clang (built with host=x86, target=arm) with the following command: > > > clang -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=soft -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi -integrated-as main.c -o main.o -c > &g...

Hi Everybody, I recently did a cross-compiling using clang (built with host=x86, target=arm) with the following command: > clang -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=soft -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi -integrated-as main.c -o main.o -c and get error message: ------------------------------------------------------- main.c:9:9: error: instruction requires: thumb2 "ldrex

Hi Everyone, This might be more a C/C++11 question than a LLVM question: I wondering if it is semantically correct to access an ordinary variable via atomic operations, like: int val; void foo(){ atomic_store((atomic_int *)(&val), 42); } I tried this simple program on clang+llvm and 42 seems to be correctly stored to val. But, is this just by luck or a right way to go? Thanks. - Lei

On Sat, Aug 4, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > This might be more a C/C++11 question than a LLVM question: I wondering if it is semantically correct to access an ordinary variable via atomic operations, like: > > int val; > void foo(){ atomic_store((atomic_int *)(&val), 42); } &...

Hi All, I am reading about LLVM IR atomics (http://llvm.org/docs/Atomics.html) and get confused about the difference between "Unordered" and "Monotonic". In particular, I am not sure I understand the statement of "It essentially guarantees that if you take all the operations affecting a specific address, a consistent ordering exists.". For me, it means that for the

Hello, I played with Clang + LLVM 3.1 release on ARM Linux and suspected it is incompatible with GCC. My program works fine while compiled using GCC but will crash with Clang. Specifically, the alignment strategy of Clang confused me. I wrote a small program to print the structure layout of the following and compiled it with both Clang and GCC. struct S { pthread_mutex_t mutex;