similar to: [LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem"

2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
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
2005 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
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'
2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 02:32:25AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Ok, after pasting the output from "gccas -debug-pass=Arguments > </dev/null -o - >/dev/null" I get the following: > > bugpoint -verify -lowersetjmp -funcresolve -raiseallocs -simplifycfg > -mem2reg -globalopt -globaldce -ipconstprop -deadargelim -instcombine > -simplifycfg -prune-eh
2005 Apr 20
3
[LLVMdev] misc CVS patches
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
2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > I've finally got it working! The key point was to pass all bytecode > objects individually to bugpoint, and not to use the pre-linked bytecode from > gccld. nice! > After running for some time bugpoints exits saying: > > *** The following functions are being miscompiled: ucl_alloc main >
2005 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] Scheme + LLVM JIT
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: > > To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has > > announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, > > you'd be more than welcome to do so. > > My C++ knowledge is completely non-existant, but so far I've had a >
2005 Apr 21
0
[LLVMdev] misc CVS patches
On Wed, 20 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: >> 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 >
2005 Apr 20
8
[LLVMdev] misc CVS patches
On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 12:12:54PM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Misha Brukman wrote: > >On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 07:01:40AM +0200, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer > >wrote: Have you considered using bugpoint for your codegen debugging > >needs? http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/docs/Bugpoint.html#codegendebug > > Well, the (critical) bug in question was >
2005 Feb 18
0
[LLVMdev] questions about installing llvm
On Fri, Feb 18, 2005 at 11:30:45AM -0600, Feng Chen wrote: > However, although the configuration and installation process doesn't > report any error/warning, the llvmc cannot work. It just says: > Unexpected unknown exception occurred :( > > Do you have any clue about that? Have you compiled and installed llvm-gcc/llvm-g++? llvmc is not a compiler, it's just a compiler
2005 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] Simplifying boolean expressions
On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 09:47:50AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > Actually, the -instcombine pass already does this. Please try it > > out and let me know if it doesn't do what you want. > > It does work! For some reason, I was assuming that running 'opt' > without arguments would run some "reasonable" set of optimizations, > while in reality, it
2005 Jul 12
0
[LLVMdev] Does the gcc frontend do inlining or deadcode elimination ?
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005, Long Fei wrote: > > This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without > "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. > > [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c > extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c > print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c
2005 May 10
0
[LLVMdev] Scheme + LLVM JIT
LLVM list, I bumped into Alex Friedman in the hall today and by coincidence he mentioned that they were switching to LLVM for their PLT Scheme JIT project. I had evaluated LLVM a few weeks ago for my own purposes, but decided that it was too C/C++ centered and that critical features such as tail call optimization and other stack manipulation features were likely stagnant. So naturally I asked
2005 Jul 11
2
[LLVMdev] Does the gcc frontend do inlining or deadcode elimination ?
This didn't work as I tried with 197.parser. it works without "-Wl,-disable-opt" switch though. [197.parser]$ llvm-gcc analyze-linkage.c and.c build-disjuncts.c extract-links.c fast-match.c idiom.c main.c massage.c parse.c post-process.c print.c prune.c read-dict.c utilities.c xalloc.c word-file.c strncasecmp.c -Wa,-disable-opt -Wl,-disable-opt -lm -o llvm_parser [197.parser]$
2005 May 05
2
[LLVMdev] Scheme + LLVM JIT
On Thu, 5 May 2005, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Thu, May 05, 2005 at 03:46:58AM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: >> On May 5, Misha Brukman wrote: >>> To the best of my knowledge, this has not been done and no one has >>> announced their intent to work on it, so if you are interested, >>> you'd be more than welcome to do so. >> >> My C++ knowledge
2003 Nov 18
0
LLVM Status Update
Hey everyone, It's been way too long since the last status update. Since that last edition, we've gone through the 1.0 release, fixed a ton of bugs, and implemented some neat new things. Since many people are using the 1.0 release, I'll break the changes into "before 1.0" and "after 1.0" sections: Before 1.0: ----------- 1. We've cleaned up the source base
2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > Chris Lattner wrote: >> On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: >>> many thanks once more for your quick fix for this issue. Actually the >>> current CVS version is the first version since llvm-1.3 which does not >>> miscompile the UCL library, so this is a definitive improvement :-). And
2004 May 06
0
LLVM May Status Update
Hi LLVMers, Sorry for the delay, this status update should have been out a couple weeks ago. Things have been absolutely crazy here. :) May Status Update ----------------- Overall, since the LLVM 1.2 release, we've fixed several LLVM optimizations to produce better code (most have fallen into the "stop doing stupid things" category) and implemented some new optimizations. There
2005 May 05
0
[LLVMdev] Scheme + LLVM JIT
Hi, Alexander! On Wed, May 04, 2005 at 11:59:06PM -0400, Alexander Friedman wrote: > I am in the preliminary stages of adding a JIT compiler to a sizable > Scheme system (PLT Scheme). Cool! > The original plan was to use GNU Lightning, but 1) it seems to be > dead, and 2) LLVM has already done a huge amount of stuff that I would > have had to write (poorly) from scratch. Maybe
2004 Jun 23
0
[LLVMdev] weird issue with mem2reg, should have guessed
What's different about code that's been mem2reg'd from straight front end code, or anything that mem2reg hasn't been run on? PHINODES! It appears to be crashing when I try to cast a Value* that's really a BB* (from the PHInode operands) to a User*, insteresting since I am dyn_casting. I just caught this on cerr though (printing out what the Value* was each time). Let me
2005 Apr 22
0
[LLVMdev] Need help with bugpoint for codegen problem
On Fri, 22 Apr 2005, Markus F.X.J. Oberhumer wrote: > many thanks once more for your quick fix for this issue. Actually the current > CVS version is the first version since llvm-1.3 which does not miscompile the > UCL library, so this is a definitive improvement :-). And getting famliar > with bugpoint should help me tracking down possible problems much more easily > in the