similar to: Error: Too many session users??

Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> writes: > Hi Justin , > > Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going > forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the > -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov > format . Going forward, the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping (which I'll refer to as

Hi Justin , Thank you for the confirmation and we would like to know that ,going forward the clang has the support the gcc gcov format or use the -fprofile-instr-generate -fcoverage-mapping and get ride of gcov format . We are planing to customize the clang code coverage for embedded world ,before we start tweaking the gcov / -fprofile-instr-generate code-base ,we would like to take feedback

Tom , Thank you for correcting me here , All , Please review the changes made and is it ok to commit ?? Thanks ~Umesh On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 11:47 PM, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote: > Hi Umesh, > > You should send patches to llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, also each patch > should be its own plain-text attachment. > > -Tom > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at

Hi All, I am getting this error during make. please help me./ speexec.c: In function `speex_ec_process': speexec.c:112: syntax error before "noise" cc1: warnings being treated as errors speexec.c:133: warning: implicit declaration of function `speex_echo_state_reset' speexec.c:148: warning: passing arg 5 of `speex_echo_cancel' makes pointer from integer without a cast

Hi andrea, R11 treated as frame pointer at arm backend , which is fixed again . Thanks Umesh On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Andrea Mucignat <andrea at nestlabs.com> wrote: > Umesh, > Makes some sort of sense to me, OTOH: > If instead of choosing r11 as a "dummy" to align the stack we had chosen some other register in the range r0-r7 then we could have emitted the PUSH

Dear All, Attached files is related to the changes made to add the Schedmodel for a AMD bulldozer target, Please note that , the model is incomplete but has some of the valuables features implemented. Request to the group or someone from AMD for the comments on the implementation. Thanks ~umesh On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>wrote: >

To recap, this is what I was trying to solve: This C code: int bar(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f); int foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e ) { int x = 3*a; return bar3(a,b,c,d,e,x); } Produced the following assembly output: foo: push {r11, lr} sub sp, #8 bl bar add sp, #8 pop {r11, pc} The part I didn't like is that push/pop become

Hi Mehdi, The llvm3.8 gold-plugin.cpp is very different from the latest one on trunk. Your patch has compiling failure on llvm3.8 as below. I will try it on latest trunk later. Thank you help anyway! Building CXX object tools/gold/CMakeFiles/LLVMgold.dir/gold-plugin.cpp.o cd /home/jshi19/llvm38releasebuild/tools/gold && /home/jshi19/clang38/bin/clang++ -DGTEST_HAS_RTTI=0

Hi Mehdi, Should I apply your attached patch on my llvm3.8 source firstly? Or should I use the latest llvm SVN trunk instead? Steven Shi Intel\SSG\STO\UEFI Firmware Tel: +86 021-61166522 iNet: 821-6522 From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Monday, May 30, 2016 2:13 PM To: Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> Cc: Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at

Umesh, Makes some sort of sense to me, OTOH: If instead of choosing r11 as a "dummy" to align the stack we had chosen some other register in the range r0-r7 then we could have emitted the PUSH encoding T1 (2 bytes opcode) as opposed to the encoding T2 (which is a 4 bytes opcode). A On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 2:59 AM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi

(And I doubt the GNU linker supports LTO with LLVM). [Steven]: I’ve pushed GNU Binutils ld to support LLVM gold plugin, see detail in this bug https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20070. The new GNU ld linker works well with LLVM/Clang LTO when build IA32 code in my side. And from the ld owner input in the bug comments, the current X64 LLVM LTO issue is in llvm LTO plugin. The fact

I made a quick cross check with information in the SWOG (Software Optimization Guide). The port assignments look consistent. A few of the latency values are slightly different from the SWOG, e.g. WriteFRcp --> 6, WriteFSqrt --> 29 and WriteCvt* --> 4 seem to be suggested instead. Others are in better position to describe how to use llvm performance framework. --mev, Mike Vermeulen

Hi Steven, > On May 29, 2016, at 11:28 PM, Shi, Steven <steven.shi at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Mehdi, > Should I apply your attached patch on my llvm3.8 source firstly? Or should I use the latest llvm SVN trunk instead? I wrote it on trunk, but I expect it to be fairly easy to port on 3.8. This is really just quickly plumbing an option on the TargetMachine creation. --

Hi Mehdi, GCC LTO seems support large code model in my side as below, if the code model is linker specific, does the GCC LTO use a special linker which is different from the one in GNU Binutils? I'm a bit surprised if both OS X ld64 and gold plugin do not support large code model in LTO. Since modern system widely use the 64bit, the code need to run in high address (larger than 2 GB) is a

To context was , Basic requirement was to append extra string to the decl name and update all his references to the updated name. , So we are constructing the DeclarationName instance as stated below code snap. and from DeclarationName instance ,we are constructing the DeclarationNameInfo and same info used to create decl spec with FunctionDecl::Create () . Question is , How do ,someone

On 05/30/16 01:34 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > > We don't use cl::opt in gold, instead we parse the -plugin-opts that > gold passes the plugin (see process_plugin_option). > What about that: $ grep ParseCommandLineOptions tools/gold/gold-plugin.cpp // ParseCommandLineOptions () expects argv[0] to be program name. Lazily cl::

I think emitting "testExt" as an external declaration (what gcc does) doesn't do much for the debugger; being a declaration, it has no location, and so you can't do things like examine its value, unless you find the symbol in the defining CU first. I don't see a real "compatibility with gcc" argument here. Is there some behavior of some consumer that is affected

Test cases? Also, this seems a bit heavy-handed for a solution. Why is getLastArgIntValue being called twice in the first place? ~Aaron On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 6:35 AM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Clang pop up with the "error: invalid integral value" diagnostics twice > ,when you enable the optimization through -O with a

Hi Mehdi, After deeper debug, I found my firmware LTO wrong code issue is related to X64 code model (-mcmodel=large) is always overridden as small (-mcmodel=small) if LTO build. And I don't know how to correctly specific the large code model for my X64 firmware LTO build. Appreciate if you could let me know it. You know, parts of my Uefi firmware (BIOS) have to been loaded to run in high

Edited the Subject. On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Umesh Kalappa <umesh.kalappa0 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All , > > We are looking at the C sample i.e > > extern int i,j; > > int test() > { > while(1) > { i++; > j=20; > } > return 0; > } > > command used :(clang version 3.8.0-2ubuntu4 (tags/RELEASE_380/final) > ) > clang