similar to: [LLVMdev] Testing Release 1.5

On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > I haven't specifically tried the 1.5 branch yet on FreeBSD, but the current > version just before you branched it passes gmake check and fails four > llvm-test tests: siod, SPASS, archie, and plot2fig. SPASS needs porting > work to compile correctly on FreeBSD. I haven't analyzed the other three > yet, but they weren't

siod fails with gcc link errors: cannot find -ldl archie and plot2fig fail with gcc link errors: re_comp and re_exec are undefined Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > >> I haven't specifically tried the 1.5 branch yet on FreeBSD, but the >> current version just before you branched it passes gmake check and >> fails four llvm-test tests:

On Tue, 17 May 2005, Jeff Cohen wrote: > siod fails with gcc link errors: cannot find -ldl > archie and plot2fig fail with gcc link errors: re_comp and re_exec are > undefined Again, the reason that these are showing up is because I changed the makefiles. They were failing before, just not notifying us. If the native compiler fails, we have nothing to compare against. As such

I haven't specifically tried the 1.5 branch yet on FreeBSD, but the current version just before you branched it passes gmake check and fails four llvm-test tests: siod, SPASS, archie, and plot2fig. SPASS needs porting work to compile correctly on FreeBSD. I haven't analyzed the other three yet, but they weren't failing two days earlier. John Criswell wrote: > Dear All, >

> Itanium Everything checks out as expected. :) Duraid

Hi everyone, I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Be warned, it's pretty rough right now. Here are some of the known defects: - No varargs - No alloca - No instruction scheduling/bundling of any sort ...or in other words, it breaks often and when it does work, it's a dog. On the plus side, it _does_ have a tasty new pattern instruction selector. :) Beyond fixing the

Does anybody know if there is some tool to convert from WHIRL to LLVM? maybe some project under development? a similar project? Thanks > > --- Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> wrote: > > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:45:54 +0900 > > From: Duraid Madina <duraid at octopus.com.au> > > To: ahs3 at fc.hp.com, LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at

On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 05:04 +0900, Duraid Madina wrote: > I've just checked in an IA64 backend to LLVM! Woo hoo! And There Was Much Rejoicing in IA64 Land :-). -- Ciao, al ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Al Stone Alter Ego: Linux & Open Source Lab Debian Developer Hewlett-Packard

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

On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but if someone were to contribute it to us, we would gratefully host it. Note that if you

Hi Misha, On 6/1/05, Misha Brukman <brukman at uiuc.edu> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:33:39AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > > What's the plan for support on Linux 64-bit machines? Is that actively > > being worked on right now or is there a roadmap for doing this? > > Do you mean compiling on 64-bit Linux or generating code for 64-bits? > I meant

Alexander Friedman wrote: > On May 17, John Criswell wrote: > >>Dear All, >> >>I've finished building binaries for the GCC frontends and am now testing >> the 1.5 release branch on i386/Linux, Sparc/Solaris, and PowerPC/MacOS X. >> >>I'm looking for volunteers to test LLVM 1.5 on platforms that we don't >>have in house. I'm

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:04 -0500, Misha Brukman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Bill Wendling wrote: > > It didn't look like there was a cftonend binary for the IA-64 > > platform. Are we supposed to use the x86 binaries instead? > > The answer to that is that we don't have IA-64 in-house, so we don't > provide an IA-64 C/C++ front-end, but

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. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 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. 2) Run make check,

A big compile time regression. Any ideas? Ciao, Duncan. On 22/07/11 19:13, llvm-testresults at cs.uiuc.edu wrote: > > bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386 nightly tester results > > URL http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/simple/nts/253/ > Nickname bwilson__llvm-gcc_PROD__i386:4 > Name curlew.apple.com > > Run ID Order Start Time End Time > Current 253 0 2011-07-22 16:22:04

Hi, For the PyPy project ( http://codespeak.net/pypy ) I am working on the x64-64 support. I would like to use llc -march=ia64 to generate the assembly but that is not supported at the moment. As a workaround I let llc generate C code that gets compiled, but this unfortunately is not a good way to show the power of llvm. A understood this ia64 support will be worked on soon. First week of july

On Jul 16, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> For us to keep IA64 around (and for it to be minimally useful for >> your >> work!), I think that the backend should pass most of the simple >> programs in MultiSource/Benchmarks for example. It does *not* need >> to >> produce amazingly fast code, but the code needs to work. I don't >>

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> >> BTW: I don't run Linux at all, so no Linux/ia64 support. >> I can see how that could be a problem for people. >> >> Anyway: my case is a weak one and I would understand if the >> target get axed without considering my email/request...

On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > BTW: I don't run Linux at all, so no Linux/ia64 support. > I can see how that could be a problem for people. > > Anyway: my case is a weak one and I would understand if the > target get axed without considering my email/request... Hi Marcel, There are two levels of problems with the IA64 backend. On the first