similar to: questions about backport to 3.8/3.9/4.0

Thanks. That is good suggestion. I will start to work on 4.0 now. It would be good to know the 4.0.x patch release schedule and how to contribute. I found this email containing backporting timeline for 4.0.1 (already done): http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111530.html >From email, it is not clear to me whether we have upcoming 4.0.2 or not. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Jul

Hi, Tom, Considering the severity of this bug, I would like to go ahead to push the fix into release_50 branch. The fix has been tested in the trunk and by various people as well and I will also make sure all BPF tests passed before the push. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Y Song <ys114321 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Tom, > > I have a BPF backend bug which is

Hi, I have two BPF related patches, clang: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65615 llvm: https://reviews.llvm.org/D65617 The llvm patch changes one IR Builder function signature: from: Value *CreatePreserveArrayAccessIndex(Value *Base, unsigned Dimension, unsigned LastIndex) to Value *CreatePreserveArrayAccessIndex(Value *Base, unsigned Dimension,

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

Hi, I've tagged the 5.0.1-rc2 release, go ahead and start testing and report your results. -Tom

Hi, I tried to push the diff https://reviews.llvm.org/D69438 to trunk following instructions at https://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html#commit-from-git Specially, I have done the following setup: $ export PATH=$PATH:$TOP_LEVEL_DIR/llvm-project/llvm/utils/git-svn/ But my `git llvm push` did not really do the push as shown below: -bash-4.4$ git llvm push `git fetch

On Fri, Oct 25, 2019 at 2:10 PM Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Yonghong, > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2019 at 13:40, Y Song via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The `git llvm push` used to work for me. Not it stopped working. > > > > Does anybody know what have changed recently? > > We recently switched to git and

I forgot the -DADD flag earlier but the result did not change: https://godbolt.org/z/NPcn22 ________________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 20:18 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List; Y Song Cc: Alexei Starovoitov Subject: Re: [llvm-dev]

Thanks for the detailed info! The problem was that I tried without assertions and didn't inspect the IR closely as it contained this, for now, illegal instruction: %6 = bitcast i8* %5 to i8 addrspace(1)* This is clearly a clang error. I suggest opening a bug report, or sending the reproducer to cfe-dev at llvm.lists.org so someone will take a look that has more clang experience. @Matt Do

Hi, Jiong, The new patch looks good. I did some basic testing on net-next:samples/bpf and net-next:tools/testing/selftests/bpf and it works fine. All existing llvm unit tests are not impacted as well as expected. I have applied the patch to the trunk. Besides your other work to support 32bit abi, it would be interesting to see how new 32bit register can be used in 64bit architecture which may

[XT] Back from Biz trips, trying to catch up with the discussion. >>>>I agree that outlining function sub-bodies and passing in the function pointers to said outlined bodies to OpenMP helpers lets us correctly implement the semantics we need. However, unless I severely misunderstood the thread, I thought the key idea was to move *away* from that representation and towards a

Hi, I'm going to club together some responses. I agree that outlining function sub-bodies and passing in the function pointers to said outlined bodies to OpenMP helpers lets us correctly implement the semantics we need. However, unless I severely misunderstood the thread, I thought the key idea was to move *away* from that representation and towards a representation that _allows_

Thanks, Alex. See my comments below. On Wed, Aug 23, 2017 at 12:59 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 22 August 2017 at 23:39, Y Song via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hi, > > Hi Yonghong. > >> I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created >> between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor.

On Sat, Sep 23, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Jakub Kicinski via iovisor-dev <iovisor-dev at lists.iovisor.org> wrote: > On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 22:03:47 -0700, Yonghong Song wrote: >> On 9/22/17 9:24 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote: >> > On Thu, 21 Sep 2017 11:56:55 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:20:40AM +0100, Jiong Wang via iovisor-dev wrote:

Hi, I have a case that for pointer with address space attribute, pointer arithmetic is not work. For example, -bash-4.4$ cat test.c #define __user __attribute__((address_space(1))) void __user * test(void __user *arg) { #ifdef ADD return arg + 4; #else return arg; #endif } -bash-4.4$ -bash-4.4$ clang -g -c test.c -bash-4.4$ clang -g -c -DADD test.c clang-10: ../lib/IR/Instructions.cpp:2749:

I was trying to find some documentation for this field and the best I could find is: https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/constants.py What do the numbers mean? The comments in the file indicate that strings are valid too (eg. DISKTYPE=OVFS). Also this patch as written will affect -o vdsm mode too (another deprecated-ish mode where we write directly to the Storage

Maybe it should be worth backporting some of what's bellow? Thomas -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [Xen-devel] Backport requests for 4.0 Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 17:41:56 +0000 From: Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson at eu.citrix.com> To: Keir Fraser <keir at xen.org> CC: xen-devel at lists.xensource.com Having searched through the changelogs, these three changesets

On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 5:51 AM, Daniel Sanders <daniel.sanders at imgtec.com> wrote: > Author: dsanders > Date: Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > New Revision: 239035 > > Include BPF target in CMake builds. > > Modified: > llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt > > --- llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt (original) > +++ llvm/trunk/CMakeLists.txt Thu Jun 4 07:51:20 2015 > @@

Hello. I've tried to add some simple arithmetic vector operations to the BPF backend available in the LLVM repo. Because I added in BPFRegisterInfo.td another RegisterClass (taken from the Mips backend): def MSA128W: RegisterClass<"BPF", [v2i64, v2f64], 128, (sequence "W%u", 0, 31)>; in order to support vector for example, ADD

Dear there, I was trying to use clang to cross compile executable directly on my mac to bpf ISA: clang -target bpf-linux-gnu aaa.c But I guess maybe the linker does not support BPF? (with -c clang can generate unlinked objs) Unexpected arch UNREACHABLE executed at llvm/tools/clang/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp:8113 Should I use other linkers to link clang generated BPF objs? Thanks, Xiaochu