search for: pennington

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Richard Pennington" <rich at pennware.com> > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Sent: Wednesday, September 7, 2016 7:37:50 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [PowerPC] Recent branch too far breakage > > Hi Rich, > > It is hard to tell, but there was a bug fix made to the branch > relaxati...

Eli Friedman wrote: > 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference >> (32 vs 64), but it is the same register (ax). >> Works on x86. >> >> %42 = c...

(Fixed the cfe email address) On 12/18/2015 09:34 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > On 18 December 2015 at 19:15, Richard Pennington via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> It turns out that it can with some simple patches. > This sounds really cool. I think we should seriously consider putting > these patches into LLVM mainline. > >> Information on building clang/LLVM with ELLCC is he...

A while back (2012) there were a few messages related to using YAML config files to set up how clang would build stuff, especially for cross compilers. My ELLCC project is entirely cross compilation focused, so today I decided to play around with the config file idea. Right now it only handles replacing a "-target foo" option with the options defined in the file foo in the

On Sun, Aug 16, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Richard Pennington<rich at pennware.com> wrote: > Richard Pennington wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> The enclosed patch preserves debug information about compilation units, >> functions, and line number information when doing bitcode linking. I'm not >> easily able to try this...

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > Yes, that is supposed to work in theory. In practice, most targets > only support returning up to two values in registers. Eventually, we > want the code generator to support returning excess return values on > the stack, but we don't have that code yet. Thanks for...

2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: > Eli Friedman wrote: >> 2009/8/2 Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com>: >>> The following fails on x86_64 because of the output constraint '0'. >>> My question is, is this legal. LLVM complains about the size difference &gt...

I am designing an application to run a fishing tournament I am hosting. Each fish entered will be given a point total based on the length of the fish and the species of fish. Each species has a point multiplier. For Example Trout have a multiplier of 10 so a 20 inch Trout would have a score of 200. My conundrum is in where and when do I calculate the points. The options I have come up

Hi and hello, I have a problem confusing me. I hope someone can help me with it. I followed a "best practise" - I think - using dedicated zfs filesystems for my virtual machines. Commands (for completion): [i]zfs create rpool/vms[/i] [i]zfs create rpool/vms/vm1[/i] [i] zfs create -V 10G rpool/vms/vm1/vm1-dsk[/i] This command creates the file system [i]/rpool/vms/vm1/vm1-dsk[/i] and the

On Thursday, December 08, 2011 02:46:39 AM Csaba Raduly wrote: > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > > I compiled a program and standard library using clang/LLVM and found the > > results interesting: > > > > text data bss dec hex filename > > 141312 4076 16668 162056 27908 bzip2.arm > > 131764 4076 16668 152508 253b...

On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 11:46 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > On Thursday, December 08, 2011 02:46:39 AM Csaba Raduly wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Richard Pennington  wrote: >> > I compiled a program and standard library using clang/LLVM and found the >> > results interesting: >> > >> >   tex...

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Aug 8, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> This patch raises selected instructions to function calls. I've dome >> some preliminary testing and I works: > > Out of curiosity, why do you want this? > I do bitcode linking of a whole program, including the soft-float and othe...

Hi, The enclosed patch preserves debug information about compilation units, functions, and line number information when doing bitcode linking. I'm not easily able to try this for non-bitcode linking. Could someone familiar with debug info take a look and tell me if it appears to be benign? The rational is that formerly the compile units and subprogram definitions were made into a single

Richard Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > The enclosed patch preserves debug information about compilation units, > functions, and line number information when doing bitcode linking. I'm > not easily able to try this for non-bitcode linking. Could someone > familiar with debug info take a look and...

On 12/14/2010 04:28 PM, Wesley Peck wrote: > On Dec 14, 2010, at 3:46 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: >> Notice that the label $BB0_1 is missing. If I disable filling in the >> branch delay slots, I get: > > Is this with the latest SVN HEAD version of LLVM or some other version? The delay slot filler and many other things have been updated for the Microblaze backend. In par...

On Jul 20, 2008, at 10:59 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Jul 20, 2008, at 6:25 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: >> Yes, that is supposed to work in theory. In practice, most targets >> only support returning up to two values in registers. Eventually, we >> want the code generator to support r...

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 22, 2007, at 2:40 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> Does Elsa provide an advantage over g++? For me, understanding it is a >> big plus. ;-) In addition, Elsa has a Berkeley-like license which I >> prefer. > > Ok. If you're not planning on extending the front-end, > understandability doesn't re...

Hi, :If I compile this file with debugging enabled (clang/LLVM TOT) int main() { } I get the error Error: inconsistent uses of .cfi_sections From the 2.27 binutils assemblers. It seems that 2.27 doesn't like the .cfi_sections .debug_frame directive following previous .cfi directives. The assemblers seem to be happy if the .cfi_sections directive precedes any other .cfi directive. Is

I'm using a recent revision of TOT (280704) to build clang/LLVM for PowerPC64 little endian. I'm getting an assembler error when building PPCInstPrinter.cpp: The error is: /tmp/PPCInstPrinter-84c835.s: Assembler messages: /tmp/PPCInstPrinter-84c835.s:7671: Error: operand out of range (0x0000000000008004 is not between 0xffffffffffff8000 and 0x0000000000007ffc) The offending line is

...ld be something a bit more general in LLVM, rather than specifically in clang, so that other llvm tools (e.g. llvm-objdump) could take advantage of a similar format for target description files if they need something more than just the triple argument. David > On 15 Sep 2014, at 13:09, Richard Pennington <rich at pennware.com> wrote: > > I've updated my blog with the current state of my compilation configuration prototype. http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=13246 > Again, any comments/criticisms greatly appreciated. > > -Rich > > On 09/05/2014 09:23 PM, Richard Pennington wr...