similar to: [LLVMdev] Running llvmgcc only (under test/Programs)

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 20000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Running llvmgcc only (under test/Programs)"

2002 Oct 31
1
[LLVMdev] problems with llvmgcc
Dear Prof. Adve, Now I can use llvmgcc to compile a .c file into .bc file. But I still have trouble simply run the .bc code. Below is the sequence I got when I tried. I really don't know what's going on here. Please let me know how can I fix it. Thanks, xiaodong xli3|csil-suna48|~/cs426|[13]% llvmgcc scalarize.c -o scalarize xli3|csil-suna48|~/cs426|[14]% scalarize Cannot load value of
2002 Oct 30
0
[LLVMdev] problems with llvmgcc
The problem with llvmgcc invoking as instead of llvm-as has been fixed. 3 llvm-specific executables needed to be copied into a default location where gcc can find them if it does not find them as configured (gcc was configured for the paths on our research machines and copied over). Let us know if you have additional problems. --Vikram > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-admin
2002 Oct 30
2
[LLVMdev] problems with llvmgcc
Thanks, Chris, Below is the output of 'llvmgcc he.c -v' xli3|csil-suna27|~/cs426|[35]% llvmgcc he.c -v Reading specs from /usr/dcs/projects/cs426/Software/gcc_install/bin/../lib/gcc-lib/llvm/3.1/specs Configured with: /home/vadve/lattner/cvs/gcc/configure --srcdir=/home/vadve/lattner/cvs/gcc --prefix=/home/vadve/lattner/cvs/gcc_install_sparc --target=llvm --enable-languages=c
2002 Oct 29
0
[LLVMdev] problems with llvmgcc
> ok, I finished recompiling llvm, and when trying to use llvmgcc I get > the following error message: > as -o /var/tmp//ccIuGwwQ.o /var/tmp//ccZvtWKU.s > as: error opening '/var/tmp//ccIuGwwQ.o': file exists! > Use -f command line argument to force output Okay, this is the problem. For some reason, it is trying to use the 'as' in your path, which is the LLVM
2003 Sep 25
0
FW: [LLVMdev] basic block tracing
Rahul, Were you talking about tracing in the sense of "profiling" (which Anand did), or tracing of values as they are computed for debugging generated code (which I did)? For tracing of values for debugging, the answer is yes: we insert code in each BB and print out the values computed in that BB that are live at the end of the BB (so we don't print out temporaries computed and
2004 Aug 03
3
[LLVMdev] Compiler Driver [high-level comments]
I just had a chance to read some of follow-up comments on Reid's initial document. I agree with Chris's discussion below of what is needed for users to get IPO/lifelong opt'n via LLVM without extensive changes to Makefiles, and about what .o files should contain. This is in perfect agreement with what I just said about how users should view LLVM. --Vikram
2003 Oct 23
0
[LLVMdev] RE: Ticket #7559: FW: Bradfields/PCJF-10959
Sorry for that last message, it was intended for llvm at cs instead of llvmdev at cs. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve > -----Original Message----- > From: Vikram S. Adve [mailto:vadve at cs.uiuc.edu] > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 1:55 PM > To: 'Nate Fyie' > Cc: 'LLVM Developers List' > Subject: RE: Ticket #7559: FW: Bradfields/PCJF-10959 > >
2003 Oct 23
0
[LLVMdev] RE: Ticket #7559: FW: Bradfields/PCJF-10959
Great! Could you please add a /localhome directory to each of them? Since there are 2 disks per machine, perhaps the best thing to do would to make /localhome a real directory and make separate local directories on each disk, so that we can each do something like this: /localhome/vadve -> /mounts/seraph/disks/0/localhome/vadve /localhome/lattner ->
2009 Oct 19
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Developer meeting videos up
I too am disappointed that not all talk slides are posted. To me it speaks poorly of the whole meeting since there were parallel sessions and not everyone could attend in person all the sessions they wanted to. The slides are, I thought, meant to be like the "proceedings" and If I recall some of the Apple slides are present from previous years but not this year. Vinod On Sat, Oct 17,
2002 Oct 29
2
[LLVMdev] problems with llvmgcc
Dear llvm, I just tried to compile a simple file hello.c. But each time I used llvmgcc hello.c, it gave me the following error: xli3|csil-suna33|~/cs426|[13]% llvmgcc hello.c as: error opening '/var/tmp//ccapglpE.o': file exists! Use -f command line argument to force output I really got confused. Could you please let me know what's wrong? thanks, Jerry
2009 Jul 11
0
[LLVMdev] ANTLR?
When you create a parser via ANTLR you specify the output language of the resulting recursive descent parser, at the moment there exists no C++ output template to my knowledge, thus you would have to generate the parser as C code for which a template exists. The runtime support should be there, at least partially but it won't use things like exceptions, nor will it have a very modular design
2007 Jun 08
1
[LLVMdev] Fwd: PC Magazine
Our department outreach coordinator spotted this and forwarded it to me. It's a lot of speculation but I thought many of you would be interested. --Vikram http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~vadve http://llvm.org Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jennifer C La Montagne" <jsandone at uiuc.edu> > Date: June 8, 2007 12:53:00 PM CDT > To: "Vikram Sadanand Adve"
2006 Apr 26
5
[LLVMdev] Re: Newbie questions
On Apr 26, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Vikram" == Vikram Adve <vadve at cs.uiuc.edu> writes: > > Vikram> Either way, one issue that you will have to deal with is > preserving > Vikram> the behavior of Java exceptions (assuming you care about > that). LLVM > Vikram> does not preserve the order of potentially
2005 Sep 05
1
[LLVMdev] dependence analyzer for machine code?
On Sep 5, 2005, at 10:21 AM, Andrew Lenharth wrote: > On Mon, 2005-09-05 at 14:45 +0800, Tzu-Chien Chiu wrote: > >> why there is no general dependency analysis for the "machin code"? >> perhaps it's because the instruction scheduling is only implemented >> for sparcv9? >> > > Most backends use the SelectionDAG infastructure to do this kind of >
2009 Jul 11
2
[LLVMdev] ANTLR?
That sounds like a problem. Just so I understand, do you mean there isn't the run-time support etc. to write back ends for the C++ language, or that the compiler IR is also somehow insufficient to write a code generator? --Vikram Associate Professor, Computer Science University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign http://llvm.org/~vadve On Jul 11, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Granville Barnett
2009 Oct 18
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Developer meeting videos up
On Oct 15, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Unfortunately, we found out at the last minute that Apple has a rule > which prevents its engineers from giving video taped talks or > distributing slides. We will hold onto the video and slide assets in > case this rule changes in the future. > > -Chris Chris, I hope you can pass my message along to the people at Apple
2017 Feb 01
0
[RFC] IR-level Region Annotations
> On Jan 31, 2017, at 7:53 PM, Tian, Xinmin <xinmin.tian at intel.com> wrote: > > In this case, inliner is educated to add all local variables to the tag of enclosing parallel region, if there is enclosing parallel region. So isn’t it a good example that shows that your intrinsic *cannot* be opaque and that IR passes need to be modified to handle not only the IR-region
2006 Apr 26
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Newbie questions
>>>>> "Vikram" == Vikram Adve <vadve at cs.uiuc.edu> writes: Vikram> Either way, one issue that you will have to deal with is preserving Vikram> the behavior of Java exceptions (assuming you care about that). LLVM Vikram> does not preserve the order of potentially excepting instructions Vikram> (e.g., a divide or a load). This would have to be handled
2007 Nov 02
3
[LLVMdev] [Fwd: Fwd: LLVM and threading]
Dear All, Here's a question Vikram and I received. Is the LLVM JIT thread safe? -- John T. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Adve, Vikram Sadanand" <vadve at uiuc.edu> Subject: Fwd: LLVM and threading Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2007 09:48:59 -0500 Size: 3037 URL:
2008 Apr 11
0
[LLVMdev] choice between SSAPRE and bitvector aporach
On Apr 4, 2008, at 8:28 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Fri, Apr 4, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Vikram S. Adve <vadve at cs.uiuc.edu> > wrote: >> >> >> Dan, >> >> Doesn't the paper also assume the invariant that phi operands are >> effectively dead after the Phi, which is true right after SSA is >> constructed, but potentially not after