similar to: test-suite: SPEC CPU 2017

If this is mainly about size then I would rather propose to split the "ABI-Testsuite" folder into a separate repository. With 1.5G it takes up more space than the rest of the repository combined yet it is coneptually independent of the rest of the testsuite and most people are not running it. - Matthias > On Jul 9, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Michael Kruse via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthias Braun via cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Abe Skolnik" <a.skolnik at samsung.com> > Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2016 6:20:09 PM > Subject: Re: [cfe-dev] [llvm-dev] improving

Let's move this to llvm-dev. I should describe my goals/motivation for the work I have been putting into the llvm-testsuite lately. This is how I see the llvm-test-suite today: - We provide a familiar cmake build system so people have a known environment to tweak compilation flags. - Together with the benchmark executable we build a .test file that describes how to invoke the benchmark and

Okay, I was intrigued, tried it and it turns out you can add make a patch for basic google benchmark support in 40 minutes: http://reviews.llvm.org/D18428 <http://reviews.llvm.org/D18428> So there is a base now if someone wants to write benchmarks for it in the future. - Matthias > On Mar 23, 2016, at 6:00 PM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >

> On Mar 23, 2016, at 5:54 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Let's move this to llvm-dev. I should describe my goals/motivation for the work I have been putting into the llvm-testsuite lately. This is how I see the llvm-test-suite today: > > - We provide a familiar cmake build system so people have a known environment to tweak

Hi Matthias, >Jingu: Why do you even want a configuration that has LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP but does not have asserts enabled at the same time? My colleague and I am doing custom project using clang/llvm. We have always wanted to use the IR Value's dump() to check our implementation correctly with Debug, Release and another builds. We thought the LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP is for it. If Chris fixes

> On Apr 10, 2017, at 12:37 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > The situation is not consistent. Yes there are several places where we have the #if in the headers however there are far more cases where it is not. Some points here: > > - This whole LLVM_DUMP_FUNCTION/LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP is about enabling the linker to strip (or not strip) the dumping function in

Just a suggestion: Setting up the documentation build up as a buildbot (or jenkins) job would make it transparent what happens and what errors are occuring on the build machine... - Matthias > On Dec 13, 2016, at 10:21 AM, Renato Golin via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 13 December 2016 at 18:03, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: >> If

As I wrote the trick here is sneak the initGlobals() into the places where we do pass registration which should get you a big part of the way. For the remaining cases you have to add a few functions and call them from init() like functions which we have all over llvm anyway because of pass registration. - Matthias > On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:46 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com>

On 10/11/2016 at 4:15 PM, Matthias Braun wrote: > I don't find it surprising that some applications do not work properly with -ffast-math and I think we > have to accept that fact. I think it is valid to skip those tests in the test-suite when a fast math > flag combination is used (after making sure there is no easy way to make the test more robust). > I would add a

Presently several of our headers have definitions like: #if !defined(NDEBUG) || defined(LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP) void dump() const; #endif Would it make sense to modify the build system to define LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP in config.h on debug builds? Then we could wrap dump methods just based on LLVM_ENABLE_DUMP instead of two variables. -Chris > On Apr 10, 2017, at 1:34 PM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev

Hi llvm-dev, Are we still able to run llvm test-suite without LNT? Also, is there any example of configuring test-suite to run against 3rd party backend rather than llc? Thanks Hongbin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160810/2adbad76/attachment.html>

Well for one you’re snippet includes a `static void init_globals() {` which definitely can be “static” and it is quite unclear to me how you’re gonna trigger the registration for it. > On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:43 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > But it is more work: My strawman proposal only needs a very mechanical change of adding one xxx.init(); line for each

Hi Matthias, Sorry for the late reply. Yes, you are correct, I do have optnone attribute on my function. I did pass -O0 to the tools. For your information, my invocations are as below: clang --target=mips-unknown-linux -mips32 test.c -emit-llvm -S llc -O0 -march=mips -mcpu=mips32 test.ll -o test.s Based on the generated .ll file, there is optnone attribute on the function, i

But it is more work: My strawman proposal only needs a very mechanical change of adding one xxx.init(); line for each global. Putting the variables into context classes is more involved: You have to actually decide on the appropriate context class for each of them and you will face lots of small helper functions outside of classes that simply have no appropriate context at hand. - Matthias >

Phabricator seems to like to send emails with zero content to the list with relatively high frequency, like this: > From: Ikhlas Ajbar <iajbar at codeaurora.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove unused function HasPICArg(). > To: iajbar at codeaurora.org, bcahoon at codeaurora.org > Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu > Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 18:29:30 +0000 (6 hours, 21 minutes, 32

So if I first create the value in an entry BB and then build a CopyToReg but then I have to read it in a BB that loops back to itself, with it's own CopyToReg at the end, then I have two CopyToReg nodes for the same value. In this case, I need to create 3 virt regs, 1 for each CopyToReg and a third for the CopyFromReg in the beginning of the loop BB, right? And then I need to build a PHI

Thanks Matthias I can also use the method intervalIsInOneMBB() from LiveIntervals class to relate a LiveInterval to a MachineBasicBlock, right? Em 04/09/2015 2:26 PM, "Matthias Braun" <mbraun at apple.com> escreveu: > There is no direct support for this, but you can use > LiveIntervalAnalysis::getMBBStartIndex()/getMBBEndIndex()/getMBBFromIndex() > to relate the

I don’t believe it is any more work (except the registry infrastructure) to do than you strawman proposal. > On Dec 13, 2016, at 3:36 PM, Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> wrote: > > I don't agree with an ideological "burn and remove all the globals" stance. For one thing that means heavy rewriting (we would need to move all the Statistic variable into classes

Running llc with '-verify-machineinstrs' may tell you which instruction break the SSA form. Ruiling From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of jin chuan see via llvm-dev Sent: Monday, September 11, 2017 10:02 AM To: Matthias Braun <mbraun at apple.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Live Register Spilling Sorry about the