similar to: [LLVMdev] -Wl,native-cbe problem

On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 22:07, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Follow up: After removing the dangling symlink the problem now looks: > > -march=c((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x1e)[0x847a17e] > -fno-strict-aliasing: example.out.cbe.c: No such file or directory > gccld: example.out.cbe.c: Can't destroy file: > make: *** [example.out] Error 1 > At a minimum that

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > When running the current CVS version on an AMD64 (targeted at 64-bits) I hit > the following when trying to link with -Wl,native-cbe: > > march=c((anonymous namespace)::PrintStackTrace()+0x1e)[0x847a17e] > /lib/libc.so.6(abort+0xcc)[0x556abbbc] > -march=c[0x8261958] > [0x8afe738] > gccld: /usr/lib/../lib64/X11:

Adam, Looks like you have your first issue with the gccld patch. Could you please look into this for us? Markus seems to have detected a situation where -native-cbe is acting like -native ... On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 00:39, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Short update: -native-cbe is currently broken as gccld/llc seems to generate > assembler code instead of C. To easy debugging of such

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:46:53AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Debugging code generator problem! > <cbe><gcc><program>Warning: While generating reference output, program > exited with > non-zero exit code. This will NOT be treated as a failure. > > *** The C backend cannot match the reference diff, but it is used as the > 'known good'

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > sys::Program::ExecuteAndWait() requires that the first element in "args" > should be the name of the program, but (at least) llvm-ld.cpp and gccld.cpp > fail to do so, thereby effectively swallowing the first parameter. > This is the reason that -native-cbe has not working for some time - actually > I wonder why no

It's correct; the win32 version also expects the first arg to be the name of the program. Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: > >> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> sys::Program::ExecuteAndWait() requires that the first element in >>> "args" should be the name of the program, but (at least) llvm-ld.cpp

For the heck of it I tried upgrading to gcc 3.4.2 (from 3.3.3). It didn't make a difference. So here are the failures for llvm-test. All diffs are against the "native" output. ===================== MultiSource/Applications/sgefa cbe failed differently from jit/llc. First cbe: 84c84 < One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879153e+02. --- > One-Norm(A) ---------- 8.879156e+02.

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> >>> There is still one unneeded LongTy in LowerInvoke.cpp - something like >>> this pseudo-diff should probably get applied. >> >> >> What does this impact? > > This causes code like > > write(2,

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 03:13:44AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > >On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:32:25AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > >>[...] > >>bugpoint: Unknown command line argument '-instcombine-load-vn'. Try: > >>'bugpoint --help' > > > >You need a space between -instcombine and

On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:01:40AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > While trying to hunt down a codegen bug (not yet found) ... Have you considered using bugpoint for your codegen debugging needs? http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/Bugpoint.html#codegendebug > I've collected some small patches you might find useful. Sweet! > Please review and apply as you see fit. I've

On Sat, 1 May 2004, [koi8-r] "Valery A.Khamenya[koi8-r] " wrote: > there are two issues concerning invoking optimizations: > > 1. > this document: > http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/GettingStarted.html > is very nice, it would be good though to add in a section > > An Example Using the LLVM Tool Chain > > examples on optimization step. That's an

I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc (bugpoint debug output below). I looked into the "conflicting type for malloc" problem and it doesn't seem easy to solve due to the unknown size of size_t (see LowerAllocations.cpp). The "void main()" problem is probably a result of this test being converted from Fortran. I'll have to dig into

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:31, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:12, David Greene wrote: > > I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc > > (bugpoint debug output below). > > I was using gcc 4.1.2. When I try 3.2.3 I get: > > bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:237: warning: conflicting types for built-in > function

Hi, I'm running into some strange errors with the CBE. I've narrowed the problem down to a very simple CPP program: main.cpp: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #include <string> static std::string hello("Hello world!"); int main() { return 0; }

On Fri, 13 May 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >> Ah ok, in that case, the CBE should be fixed. There are other cases that >> could cause long arguments to exist on 32-bit systems. If the C compiler >> takes issue with this, it would be best to tell the CBE to emit casts to C >> (long) or something. > > Actually that's the only case I stumbled over this

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:12, David Greene wrote: > I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc (bugpoint > debug output below). I was using gcc 4.1.2. When I try 3.2.3 I get: bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:237: warning: conflicting types for built-in function `memcpy' bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c: In function `main':

Hello all, As some of you may remember, I am trying to get the C back-end back in working condition. I have the old version up and running (including most of it's pre-existing bugs), email me if you want a patch to the current trunk. === Question 1: new design feedback === I am currently looking into moving the CBE to run after the initial lowering and type legalization phases so that

On 10/10/12 18:57, Nadav Rotem wrote: > Hi Roel! > > > On Oct 10, 2012, at 5:29 AM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at tue.nl> wrote: > >> Hello all, >> >> As some of you may remember, I am trying to get the C back-end back in working condition. I have the old version up and running (including most of it's pre-existing bugs), email me if you want a patch to the

Hi Jing, I am cc ing to LLVMdev (LLVM developer's mailing list). You get more accurate and faster responses that way. <snip> > Actually LLVM is well documented and the coding style is very friendly. We have rarely had problems since we started one month ago. Unfortunately, here comes something I am not very clear, but it is critical to our evaluation. I appreciate if you could

The C Backend was remove in 3.1 (http://llvm.org/releases/3.1/docs/ReleaseNotes.html): "Major Changes and Removed Features ... The C backend has been removed. It had numerous problems, to the point of not being able to compile any nontrivial program." On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Mingliang LIU <liuml07 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I met an error when I run the