similar to: [LLVMdev] powerpc-darwin results

On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > I'm currently implementing a linux/ppc target in llvm. The abis between cool > Darwin/ppc and linux/ppc are different and I'm running into problems > with vararg calls. ok > Before a variadic method is called, an extra instruction must be > executed (which is creqv 6, 6, 6). This instruction is not necessary in >

I am getting assembler errors on clang-llvm-2.9 output for a program with exceptions that I do not get when using the installed g++ Mac OS-X 10.4 powerpc-apple-darwin > as -version Apple Computer, Inc. version cctools-590.23.2.obj~17, GNU assembler version 1.38 the folks at gnu-binutils assure me this is an assembler bug, but also that this isn't a recognizable "gnu"

This is looking pretty good, and I'll be checking it in within a day or two. This will be an ABI change, so I'm giving warning and a chance to object.

Hi everyone, I don't believe that anyone is currently using (a recent) LLVM on PowerPC/Darwin. As far as I know, Apple stopped supporting PowerPC hardware years ago. There is a significant amount of code in the PowerPC backend dedicated to Darwin support and removing it would make maintaining the rest of the backend easier. If anyone expects upcoming LLVM releases to continue to support

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > I have an ibook G4 (powerpc) running OS X panther. I am using gcc 4.0.3 > installed from Darwin Ports to compile llvm. When I try to compile > llvm, I get the following error: > > llvm[1]: Compiling Program.cpp for Debug build > Unix/Program.inc: In function 'void llvm::SetMemoryLimits(unsigned int)': >

Hi James, I agree, we should keep a mode that prints register names (instead of just the numbers). I lean toward having a verbose mode that is compatible with the GNU assembler, which means %r1 instead of just r1. gas will also accept that syntax, so it seems more useful than the Darwin syntax on current systems. What do you think? -Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Y

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > The DynamicLibrary.cpp code is written and I believe it to be complete, > but it hasn't been tested much (at all). llvm-ld uses it to load its > plug-in optimization module. The implementation will use ltdl library > if its available, otherwise it tries to use dlopen/dlsym if they are > available, otherwise you get a compile time

On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ryan M. Lefever wrote: > The reason I didn't use Xcode 2.4 is because I'm running OS X 10.3.9 > (Panther). I have not upgraded the OS to 10.4. Xcode 2.4 requires OS X > 10.4, according to Apple's website. Do you know otherwise? I think the > highest Xcode I can get is 1.5. Okay, good point. > By the way what does FSF mean? An official gnu

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > FYI .. if you want to see how this works, check out > lib/System/DynamicLibrary.cpp and platform versions of it. Is it an option to use this interface now? How does libtool implement dlsym on darwin if not through the obvious interface? Can we just use whatever it uses? -Chris > On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 10:03, Reid Spencer wrote: > >

Hi everyone, This is just a note to mention that the PowerPC JIT is now operational and begging for testing in mainline CVS. There is one known problem (below), but otherwise it works as well as the static PowerPC backend on the test suite. The known problem is that the JIT seems unable to resolve calls to external functions that start with "__", such as __eprintf, __moddi3, etc. This

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Jing Yu wrote: I don't really have any ideas beyond what Reid has already said, but: > pollux:~/test jingyu$ opt -load > /Users/jingyu/tools/build-ppc/Release/lib/LLVMHello.so -help > Error opening '/Users/jingyu/tools/build-ppc/Release/lib/LLVMHello.so': > Can't open :/Users/jingyu/tools/build-ppc/Release/lib/LLVMHello.so: >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Duncan Sands" <baldrick at free.fr> > To: "Rafael Espíndola" <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> > Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com>, "llvm cfe" <cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu>, "LLVM Developers Mailing > List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Tuesday,

Hi Chris, Chris Lattner <sabre <at> nondot.org> writes: > We generally have not published a road map like this because it is very > difficult to do it in a meaningful way. Because LLVM is largely driven by > volenteers and because noone working on it guarantees that they will > finish a project that they start, we can't make 'promises' about new >

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007, Valery Khamenya wrote: > where could one find any LLVM development roadmap for this > and perhaps next year? We generally have not published a road map like this because it is very difficult to do it in a meaningful way. Because LLVM is largely driven by volenteers and because noone working on it guarantees that they will finish a project that they start, we

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008, Gary Benson wrote: > When you genetate code on PowerPC you need to explicitly invalidate > the instruction cache to force the processor to reread it. In LLVM > there is code to do this for function stubs on Macintosh, but not > for other platforms and not for JITted code generally. Applied, thanks!

On 22/10/12 21:12, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 22 October 2012 14:53, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: >> So, I'm not really sure if this is the right approach. I'd like some >> folks from the LLVM side of things to chime in. >> >> In general, I'm not certain we want to continue growing our dependence >> on the signext and

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

Duncan Sands <duncan.sands at gmail.com> wrote on 24.10.2012 08:20:07: > Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> Chris wrote some notes about this: > >> http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/ExtendedIntegerResults.txt > >> The plan seems sensible to me, but was blocked by not having a good > >> way of attaching the information to

Hi Hal, >> Chris wrote some notes about this: >> http://www.nondot.org/sabre/LLVMNotes/ExtendedIntegerResults.txt >> The plan seems sensible to me, but was blocked by not having a good >> way of attaching the information to parameters and return values. >> Hopefully Bill's attribute work means it is now possible. > > Indeed. Are you proposing that

On Jan 5, 2011, at 1:47 PM, Erik de Castro Lopo wrote: > Kalle Raiskila wrote: > >> And I probably should file a bug. Is ppc32 still maintained? > > I have no concrete knowledge of this, but llvm compiles > and passes all tests on ppc32, so it seems to be maintained. > About once a week I grab the latest SVN head and check this. It is run by one of the automatic