Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] BC Fle Format Change: No More Alignment!"
2013 Jul 28
0
[LLVMdev] IR Passes and TargetTransformInfo: Straw Man
Hi, Sean:
I'm sorry I lie. I didn't mean to lie. I did try to avoid making a
*BIG* change
to the IPO pass-ordering for now. However, when I make a minor change to
populateLTOPassManager() by separating module-pass and non-module-passes, I
saw quite a few performance difference, most of them are degradations.
Attacking
these degradations one by one in a piecemeal manner is wasting
2006 Nov 06
0
[LLVMdev] Problems building cfrontend 4 source on SUSE 10.1
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=us-ascii" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<b>Reid,<br>
<br>
I followed the steps but got stuck as described
2006 Nov 06
0
[LLVMdev] Problems building cfrontend 4 source on SUSE 10.1
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Reid,<br>
<br>
Here's the backtrace you asked for:<br>
<br>
2008 Feb 03
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
Target: FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE on i386
autoconf says:
configure:2122: checking build system type
configure:2140: result: i386-unknown-freebsd6.2
[...]
configure:2721: gcc -v >&5
Using built-in specs.
Configured with: FreeBSD/i386 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc version 3.4.6 [FreeBSD] 20060305
[...]
objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc.
Release build.
llvm-gcc 4.2 from source.
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
Hi,
LLVM 2.1-pre1 test results:
Linux (SUSE) on x86 (P4)
Release mode, but with assertions enabled
LLVM srcdir == objdir
# of expected passes 2250
# of expected failures 5
I ran the llvm-test suite on my desktop while I was also working on that PC,
so don't put too much trust in the timing info. Especially during the "spiff"
test the machine was swapping
2006 Nov 06
2
[LLVMdev] Problems building cfrontend 4 source on SUSE 10.1
Hi Robert,
On Mon, 2006-11-06 at 12:45 -0800, Robert Mykland wrote:
> Reid,
>
> Here's the backtrace you asked for:
>
> (gdb) bt
> #0 0x0862d65c in llvm::LiveVariables::runOnMachineFunction ()
Hmm, this is a little strange. Your LLVM build is non-debug (there's no
line numbers or arguments in any of the llvm related calls). However,
your llvm-gcc build seems to have
2006 Nov 06
4
[LLVMdev] Problems building cfrontend 4 source on SUSE 10.1
This is an libpath problem. When xgcc runs it wants to dynamically link
the libgcc.so. When you run it from the command line it will find your
system libgcc.so (which works) and so you don't see the segfault. When
you run xgcc from the Makefile, it will have set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to get
your <cfebuilddir>/gcc directory which will find the libgcc.so that it
just built, which is the one
2007 Sep 18
0
[LLVMdev] 2.1 Pre-Release Available (testers needed)
On Fri, Sep 14, 2007 at 11:42:18PM -0700, Tanya Lattner wrote:
> The 2.1 pre-release (version 1) is available for testing:
> http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.1/version1/
>
> [...]
>
> 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source.
> Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite
> (make TEST=nightly report).
>
> Send
2011 Apr 30
2
[LLVMdev] Greedy register allocation
Perhaps you noticed that LLVM gained a new optimizing register allocator yesterday (r130568). Linear scan is going away, and RAGreedy is the new default for optimizing builds.
Hopefully, you noticed because your binaries were suddenly 2% smaller and 10% faster*. Some noticed because LLVM started crashing or miscompiling their code. Greedy replaces a fairly big chunk of the code generator, so
2008 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease available for testing
Target: FreeBSD 7.0-RC1 on amd64.
autoconf says:
configure:2122: checking build system type
configure:2140: result: x86_64-unknown-freebsd7.0
[...]
configure:2721: gcc -v >&5
Using built-in specs.
Target: amd64-undermydesk-freebsd
Configured with: FreeBSD/amd64 system compiler
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.2.1 20070719 [FreeBSD]
[...]
objdir != srcdir, for both llvm and gcc.
Release
2012 Feb 19
2
[LLVMdev] Problem While Running Test Suite
Hello;
I was able to build and install llvm(3.0) under Ubuntu 11.10 (using the
./configure script found under llvm source, and then make and make
install). While configuring, I gave --prefix as a directory where I would
like llvm to be installed. I did not give --with-llvmgccdir and the
--enable-optimized argument to configure. Because 3.0 doesn't come with
llvmgcc source/binaries and I
2009 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Tanya,
>
>> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects
>> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre-
>> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself.
>
> I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories.
> Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu.
>
Ok.
2013 Feb 19
4
[LLVMdev] ARM LNT test-suite Buildbot
Hi Folks,
Looks like our LNT ARM buildbot with the vectorizer is running and
producing good results. There are only 11 failures:
FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/Burg/burg.execution_time (1 of 1104)
FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/ClamAV/clamscan.execution_time (2 of 1104)
FAIL: MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon.execution_time (3 of 1104)
FAIL:
2004 Aug 17
2
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecodes & docs
Reid,
Thanks for the detailed feedback.
A value of zero now means zero literal for everything except labels,
right? There is kind of a vague reference to this in the 1.0 -> 1.1
section I believe. You might want to make this clearer when talking about
values in the body of the document.
--> A comment on this: if a value of zero were never used for labels, that
would make me happy,
2013 Feb 19
0
[LLVMdev] ARM LNT test-suite Buildbot
Hi Renato,
I noticed the bot yesterday. Thanks for working on this!
On Feb 19, 2013, at 7:45 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi Folks,
>
> Looks like our LNT ARM buildbot with the vectorizer is running and producing good results.
Do you have a base run with vectorization turned off? So we could see where we are degrading things?
When you say good
2018 Apr 26
0
Compare test-suite benchmarks performance complied without TBAA, with default TBAA and with new TBAA struct path
Hello,
I was interested in how much Type-Based Alias Analysis helps to optimize code. For that purpose, I've compared
three sets of benchmarks: compiled without TBAA, compiled with a default TBAA metadata format, and compiled
with new TBAA metadata format.
As a set of benchmarks, I've used the LLVM test suite (http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-overview)
which has a lot of
2009 Oct 20
1
[LLVMdev] 2.6 pre-release2 ready for testing
G'Day Tanya,
Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major
brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6?
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469
http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266
2004 Aug 21
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 05:09 PM 8/20/2004, you wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote:
> > > defined would be almost always stored in one byte instead of the present
> > > usual two.
> >
> > So, if I get you correctly, you're advocating the creation of a
> Type::CharTyID
> > in the TypeID enumeration that is always written as a single byte? Note
> that
>
2004 Aug 18
0
[LLVMdev] Re: Bytecodes & docs
MOre feedback inline ...
Robert Mykland wrote:
> Reid,
>
> Thanks for the detailed feedback.
Sure .. devil's in the details :)
> A value of zero now means zero literal for everything except labels,
> right?
Hmm. Not quite sure what you mean here. Zero values are used in quite a few
places for various purposes. For example, the zlist will write a zero byte to
terminate
2004 Aug 24
0
[LLVMdev] More Encoding Ideas
At 06:43 PM 8/20/2004, Chris Lattner wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Aug 2004, Robert Mykland wrote:
> > >In any case, both signed and unsigned 8-bit constants can be written out
> > >in a single byte. Again, do you think it's worth special casing this
> > >though? Considering that we handle 8-bit strings specially already, there
> > >are not a ton of 8-bit