search for: snewbury

On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 23:59 -0700, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > > I've been trying > > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I based off the > > previous clang patch, bringing it up to date with the changes in trunk, > > and hacked together handling of x32 "ARCH" support for compiler-r...

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Wed, 2013-08-21 at 23:59 -0700, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> > wrote: > > > I've been trying > > > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I base...

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk > >wrote: > > > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > > Hi Steven,...

On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > I've been trying > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I based off the > previous clang patch, bringing it up to date with the changes in trunk, > and hacked together handling of x32 "ARCH" support for compiler-rt. > (there must...

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > Hi Steven, > > > > > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > > > > > 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers t...

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 15:22 +0100, Steven Newbury wrote: > This patch is still not creating elf32_x86_64 objects. No idea > why. :( It does however, fix elf_x86_64 (-m64) code generation on x32 > hosts which is nice. :) I know why. I had assumed Michael Liao (the original patch author) had submitted all the _LLVM_ x32 support as separate patches, and it was just the

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 12:29 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:50 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk > > >wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: &...

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > Having Clang working would of course be my primary goal, that said, > being able to compile compiler-rt is a pretty good test all is working > as it should be! :) It's also built/installed as part of the Gentoo > llvm ebuild when the clang useflag is enabled, so...

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > If I'm going to submit the Clang patch, how should it be submitted? One > patch with what's required to get x32 host to work, then another > enabling x32 code generation once the required changes to llvm are > merged? Would that be sufficient? Sounds good...

On 2 October 2013 10:12, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > How does this make any sense? > I have to agree with you that this doesn't make much sense, but there is a case where you would want something like that: when the original source uses NEON intrinsics, and there is no alternative in AltiVec, AVX or even plain C. We e...

How does this make any sense? NEON intrinsics are there to support code generation targeting the ARM NEON SIMD unit on the ARM architecture. Power/PowerPC as it's own AltiVec/VSX SIMD units, which in turn has it's own intrinsics. If you want write code that explicitly targets CPU execution units it's necessarily tied to that specific CPU architecture. If you just want to test code

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk>wrote: > On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > > Hi Steven, > > > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > > > 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 > > platform? > >...

On 2 October 2013 12:17, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 2 October 2013 10:12, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > >> How does this make any sense? >> > > I have to agree with you that this doesn't make much sense, but there is a > case where you would want something like that: when the original source > uses NEON intrinsics, and there is no alternative in Alti...

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 11:27 +0400, Alexey Samsonov wrote: > Hi Steven, > > This looks interesting and raises a number of questions :) > > 1) Does applying this patch actually bring working sanitizers to x32 > platform? > That is, after you build the clang, does "clang -fsanitize=whatever foo.c" > compile/link/run with expected results? > I doubt that, as

Hello Hal, I am not very familiar with the DSP capabilities of PowerPC, but I imagine there will be instructions for simple vector operations like vector addition, multiplication, etc. so for these I imagine the implementation would consist of just outputting the correct instruction. However, for NEON instructions like the reciprocal step (see

On Thu, 2013-08-22 at 08:40 -0700, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:56 AM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> wrote: > > If I'm going to submit the Clang patch, how should it be submitted? One > > patch with what's required to get x32 host to work, then another > > enabling x32 code generation once the required changes to llvm are > > merged? Would that be suffi...

Hi, I'm working on bringing up complete coverage for a Gentoo x32 "desktop" system. I've been cooking up quite a few patches for various packages to push upstream, but right now, the biggest blocker is the lack of support for building with/codegen targeting x32 in llvm/clang. Since the x32 patches were sent last year, I see support code has landed in LLVM, and basic handling of

This patch is still not creating elf32_x86_64 objects. No idea why. :( It does however, fix elf_x86_64 (-m64) code generation on x32 hosts which is nice. :) --- ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td.orig 2013-05-16 21:51:51.286129820 +0000 +++ ./tools/clang/include/clang/Driver/Options.td 2013-05-16 21:53:24.875004239 +0000 @@ -841,6 +841,7 @@ HelpText<"Enable hexagon-qdsp6

...ady. What Dmitri says - If you're interesting in only building the Clang on x32 host, you may avoid checking out compiler-rt repo for now. On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Dmitri Gribenko <gribozavr at gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 11:04 PM, Steven Newbury <steve at snewbury.org.uk> > wrote: > > I've been trying > > to get x32 ABI support working in Clang and compiler-rt, I based off the > > previous clang patch, bringing it up to date with the changes in trunk, > > and hacked together handling of x32 "ARCH" support for compi...

----- Original Message ----- > On 2 October 2013 12:17, Renato Golin < renato.golin at linaro.org > > wrote: > > > > > On 2 October 2013 10:12, Steven Newbury < steve at snewbury.org.uk > > wrote: > > > > > > How does this make any sense? > > > I have to agree with you that this doesn't make much sense, but there > is a case where you would want something like that: when the > original source uses NEON intrinsics, and there...