search for: pdox

...enerically. (Note that using "-march armv7" is not valid.) This is clearly wrong, but I'm not clear on where/how this should be fixed. Does the -march substitution need to happen at all? Could it be disabled only for ARM? Should TargetTriple or -march be made more precise? Thanks, - pdox -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120302/ca064760/attachment.html>

..., May 12, 2011 at 12:29 PM, Arushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: > Have these changes made it to mainline? Is there a way to get a patch for the > backend, which does the actual lowering? > > Thanks, > Arushi > > On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: >> Sergey, >> Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". >> (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most >> likely be deprecated by later changes.) >> - pdox >> >&...

Sergey, Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most likely be deprecated by later changes.) - pdox -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110220/f814866f/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm-gcc-va-arg-2.patch Type: applicatio...

On Mar 2, 2012, at 12:04 AM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > ARM subtarget features are determined by parsing the target tuple string TT. (ParseARMTriple(StringRef TT) in ARMMCTargetDesc.cpp) > > In llc, the -march setting overrides the architecture specified in -mtriple. So when you invoke: > > $ llc -march arm -...

I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). Evan On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Evan & llvmdev, > > I'm seeing a case where ARM Load/Store optimizer is breaking code. I have not had any luck trying to come up with a minimal example; it is breaking in our stage 2 LLVM build. > > But here's what I'm seeing in the debug...

...t; B <BB#22> Successors according to CFG: BB#23 BB#22 It appears that the ARM Load/Store optimizer has rolled the ADDri and STRi12 into the STR_POST_IMM, but has ignored the fact that ADDri sets CPSR (which is used by the following Bcc), whereas STR_POST_IMM does not set CPSR. - pdox -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120204/bf5fc3e7/attachment.html>

Have these changes made it to mainline? Is there a way to get a patch for the backend, which does the actual lowering? Thanks, Arushi On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Sergey, > Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". > (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most > likely be deprecated by later changes.) > - pdox > > ________________________...

...the value 0x100 - PC. (NOTE: this is NOT the same as: "foo: call foo+0x100", which requires no relocation) This can't be done correctly in PIC mode. If you do this in a shared library, the relocation is ignored and you get a jump to module_start + 0x100 instead of absolute 0x100. - pdox

...ushi Aggarwal <arushi987 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Have these changes made it to mainline? Is there a way to get a patch for the >> backend, which does the actual lowering? >> >> Thanks, >> Arushi >> >> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: >>> Sergey, >>> Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". >>> (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most >>> likely be deprecated by later changes.) >>> -...

...n 4 call ccc void %0(i8* undef) nounwind unreachable } Is this a bug in LLVM, or is there something else I need to do than just remove CALL64m? - David On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > > Hi Eli, > > I have tried this, but the resulting tool-chain was broken. > > There are only two references to "CALL64m": the definition in > > X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. > > After commenting both out, compi...

...7 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Have these changes made it to mainline? Is there a way to get a patch for the >>> backend, which does the actual lowering? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Arushi >>> >>> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: >>>> Sergey, >>>> Here's a patch on llvm-gcc which adds a flag "-fuse-llvm-va-arg". >>>> (Note that this patch won't ever be part of llvm-gcc upstream. It will most >>>> likely be deprecated by later changes....

...e ccc void @ArgsFree() nounwind { entry: %0 = load void (i8*)** undef, align 4 call ccc void %0(i8* undef) nounwind unreachable } Any ideas? - David On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:05 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am attempting to modify LLVM to generate code for an architecture which > is > > nearly identical to X86-64, but with a few minor differences. > > In particular, "call" must always have a register operand, and cannot > h...

...geting OS=NativeClient. (and it uses a private syscall interface that only works inside the NaCl environment in a particular context). Do any public LLVM buildbots (internal or external) do a full three-stage ARM build? We do a two stage build, followed by rebuilding our entire system/universe. - pdox On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 11:15 PM, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> wrote: > I've committed a fix: r149970. Please try it. I would really appreciate it > if you can provide us with a test case (unreduced test case is fine). > > Evan > > On 2012 2 4, at 09:46, David...

...logon home = \\%L\home\%U domain logons = Yes os level = 255 lm announce = False preferred master = True domain master = True wins proxy = Yes wins support = Yes admin users = root,jack,jayk,admin,administrator printing = lprng [home] comment = Home share path = /home read only = No [pdox] comment = Paradox Data path = /samba/pdox [vdac_sharp_1] comment = Sharp Printer at Plant1 path = /samba/printers/vdac_sharp_1 printable = Yes postscript = Yes printer name = vdac_sharp_1 use client driver = Yes printer driver file = /samba/printers/vdac_sharp_1/printers.def printer dri...

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 4:20 PM, David Meyer <pdox at google.com> wrote: > Hi Eli, > I have tried this, but the resulting tool-chain was broken. > There are only two references to "CALL64m": the definition in > X86Instr64bit.td, and an entry in X86InstrInfo.cpp. > After commenting both out, compilation of a large applica...

...ase || Ordering == AcquireRelease) return Error("Invalid STOREATOMIC record"); Is failing on this assembly, which was generated by Clang: store atomic i32 0, i32* @mutex release, align 4 Is this a typo or is there some reason why this assembly is invalid? Thanks, - pdox

2011/10/17 David Meyer <pdox at google.com>: > Rafael, > > I believe your example is not related to IsLegalToCallImmediateAddr. > > This is an example of calling to an immediate address: > > typedef int (*funcptr)(void); > > int main() { >  funcptr foo = (funcptr)0x100; >  foo(); > } >...

Rafael, Use this bitcode: define i32 @main() nounwind { entry: %call = tail call i32 inttoptr (i64 256 to i32 ()*)() nounwind ret i32 0 } And this command: $ llc -mtriple "i686-linux-gnu" test.ll -o test.s -filetype=asm -relocation-model=pic - pdox

..._TEXT,__text reloc 0: R_ABS reloc but no absolute symbol at target address I believe the correct thing to do is: isTargetELF() && TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static This will do the right thing on ELF, and the right thing on other formats. This may have been the original intent. - pdox

...3:57 PM, David Meyer wrote: > >> Eli, >> >> Hm. There's a test in (CodeGen/X86/call-imm.ll) which uses darwin with >> relocation model static. It expects to use call-to-immediate. >> >> Is this in error? Should I disable this check? >> >> - pdox >> >> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:49 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: >>> 2011/10/21 Rafael Ávila de Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com>: >>>>> Could be, echristo, bigcheese, would this be correct for Mach-O and COFF? >>...