search for: overos

Hello Evan and Robert I have been investigating the unexpected test failures from the ARM nightly builders in order to get a better picture why the ARM backend don't pass the whole testsuite: I have run the failing tests manually on my arm board and can now categorize most of the thirteen unexpected CodeGen failures in four categories: 1. llvm don't lower MVT::i64 properly on arm

Hi Xerxes, > 4. softfloat related errors > http://labb.zafena.se/shark-testing/llvmARMCodeGenFailures200904/softenfloat_Do_not_know_how_to_soften_the_result_of_this_operator/ > example: > > root at overo:/home/xerxes/llvm-test/fail/CodeGen/softenfloat# llvm-as < 2007-11-19-VectorSplitting.ll | llc > SoftenFloatResult #0: 0x614e00: f32 = undef > llc:

LLVM ARM v6 backend is in fairly good shape. Even the JIT passes nearly the entire llvm test suite. There are some known missing bits: 1. Exception handling 2. Atomic Not sure: 3. Debugging support (should be trivial to hook up if it's not done) Also the thumb backend is not awesome. Its performance is not great. Evan On Apr 1, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Robert Schuster wrote: > Hi, > the

Hi, the ARM backend lacks some stuff like support for atomic intrinsics. I learned the hard way (crash). Lately I was told that the ARM backend of LLVM is generally in its early stages of development. I would like to know more about this. Which stuff is missing, known to be unstable and the like. Thanks in advance for taking the time. Regards Robert -------------- next part -------------- A

Duncan Sands skrev: > Hi Xerxes, > > >> 4. softfloat related errors >> http://labb.zafena.se/shark-testing/llvmARMCodeGenFailures200904/softenfloat_Do_not_know_how_to_soften_the_result_of_this_operator/ >> example: >> >> root at overo:/home/xerxes/llvm-test/fail/CodeGen/softenfloat# llvm-as < 2007-11-19-VectorSplitting.ll | llc >>

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > LLVM Supports: > ARMv4T  -> ARM7TDMI > ARMv5TE -> ARM926EJ-S >         -> XScale > ARMv6   -> ARM1136J(F)-S > ARMv6ZK -> ARM1176JZ(F)-S > ARMv7A  -> Cortex-A8 >            Cortex-A9 > ARMv7M  -> Cortex-M3 Does the LLVM code generator generate Thumb code in addition to

On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM > on a host of target boards.  We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones, > iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc.  And most of those are already > booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which are based on

Greetings Sandeep I have tested crosscompiling llvm2.6 svn trunk 69279 + your patch for armv7a hardware. I wanted to see if it would build and if any unexpected failing tests in the testsuite would start to work using your patch. It built fine and your attached tests in the patch runs fine for me :) Now something fun this Generic test now works that previously failed: $ llvm-as <

> The ARM Holdings emulator does this; I used it with great success to > profile an Advanced Encryption Standard encryptor a while back. It is indeed a useful piece of kit. We do a lot of our internal regression tests on it, and also run LLVM's regression tests every night on it (as well as PlumHall, EEMBC and SpecInt). Unfortunately it's not exactly software we can give away or

I'm working on a couple of Yocto Project based embedded projects, one using a Gumstix Overo board and the other using an Intel Atom motherboard. Both need a simple Samba server, which isn't included in the standard build. The only existing Yocto-compatible recipe for Samba is an OpenEmbedded one for version 3.6.8. I was quite surprised to find that adding Samba almost tripled the size of

Well how about as a strawman... taking some options from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ARM_microprocessor_cores and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_of_ARM_cores LLVM Supports: ARMv4T -> ARM7TDMI ARMv5TE -> ARM926EJ-S -> XScale ARMv6 -> ARM1136J(F)-S ARMv6ZK -> ARM1176JZ(F)-S ARMv7A -> Cortex-A8 Cortex-A9 ARMv7M -> Cortex-M3

Admittedly we're very interested in becoming ARM backend maintainers as our product heavily relies on LLVM. However, we don't have testing resources to test both our product and LLVM on a host of target boards. We have some chumbys, beagleboards, iPhones, iPod Touches, tables, Android Phones, etc. And most of those are already booked solid with our own regression tests (most of which

My first ARM testing results or lack of them indicate that 3.0 release requires some some beefy machines to build. It is not so much raw cpu speed but memory and lots of it. My builds got to linking llc and at that point linker started eating megabytes of memory like chocolate. So sadly chumbys, beagleboards, iThingis(?), Raspberry Pis, Gumstix and even inexpensive Tegra2 boards seem to be out of

On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 06:20:17PM -0500, David A. Greene wrote: > This seems excessive and unrealistic. We're never going to come up with > a testsuite that satisfies everyone's needs and doing so could well be > counter-productive. If no one can commit anything unless it passes > every test (including performance) for every target under multiple > option combinations,

I'm not currently setup to be able to run the A/B comparison tests that test-suite relies upon. Fhourstones-3.1 looks to be the simplest. If you can send me the two .o files from either EABI or Darwin, I can dig into why this went wrong for you. deep On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 3:53 PM, Evan Cheng <echeng at apple.com> wrote: > Sorry I haven't gotten back to you earlier. I have

After wasting an inordinate amount of time trying to get test-suite to run on arm-apple-darwin so I could reproduce your results, attached is a patch that fixes the small copy&paste error of having 8-byte alignment for stack-allocated f64s instead of the proper 4-byte. I've updated the patch to the top of trunk changes as well. deep On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Sandeep Patel