similar to: [LLVMdev] nightly tester instead of nightly benchmarking?

Hi, where could one find any LLVM development roadmap for this and perhaps next year? Especially would be interesting to know about * planned features for PS3 Cell processor -- as well as for Wii, Xbox360 CPUs * multithreading in general * possibly coming changes in major versioning and related issues * other interesting featuring comments on current status to above listed items are also

Nightly tester 'grawp' is reporting compilation error ? How do I see detailed build log ? Thanks, - Devang

Hi Devang, Unfortunately, there's no way to see the build log unless you're on the machine from which the report was generated. If you can log in to Grawp's machine then it should be in the "WEBDIR". It is most likely mis-compiling because the needed llvm-gcc patch has not been applied after the SETCC patch to LLVM was committed last weekend. Reid. On Fri, 2006-12-29 at

Reid, Click on any of these logs and you'll see the same asm parsing issues. It's been going on for much of the week. http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machines/2006-12-29_05:40:12-Build-Log.txt http://llvm.org/nightlytest/machines/2006-12-29_05:40:12-Build-Log.txt llvm[4]: Compiling stacker_rt.ll to stacker_rt.bc for Release build (bytecode)

Jim Laskey wrote: > llvm[4]: Compiling stacker_rt.ll to stacker_rt.bc for Release build > (bytecode) > /Volumes/Muggles/LLVM/nightlytest/build/llvm/Release/bin/gccas: / > Volumes/Muggles/LLVM/nightlytest/build/llvm/projects/Stacker/lib/ > runtime/Release/stacker_rt.ll:21,0: parse error, expecting `LOAD' or > `STORE' >

Hi all i took a look into LLVM benchmarks from nightly tester and ran Shootout tests on my own. Below go just few outlines. 1. results on my AMD AthlonXP and Xeon used by LLVM team are different sometime. In particular, both Shootout and Shootout-C++ show great speed up with LLVM (in comparison to GCC) on ackerman test on my AthlonXP. But here:

You all just need remove "stacker_rt.ll". the stacker_rt.ll is a generated file, not source. The Makefile should have a dependency on llvm-gcc for it, but doesn't. Just remove stacker_rt.ll and the problem will go away. Reid. On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 08:37 -0500, Nick Lewycky wrote: > Jim Laskey wrote: > > llvm[4]: Compiling stacker_rt.ll to stacker_rt.bc for Release build

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

Hi Valery On 13 September 2010 19:07, Valery Khamenya <khamenya at gmail.com> wrote: > are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) > language implementations? I've added a new LLVM backend to the ghc Haskell compiler. > How good is LLVM for this? Works very well. I'm operating from the low levels of the ghc compiler though where I don't

I've noticed that my nightly tester doesn't seem to be reporting the results of running llvm-test, only build warnings and make check. Checking with -verbose shows that it's running the test suite, so I don't quite understand what's going on. Looking at http://llvm.org/nightlytest/ shows that none of the other Linux testers are reporting test suite results either.

On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Apache wrote: > http://llvm.org/nightlytest/test.php?machine=231&night=4754 > Name: il0102a-dhcp80.apple.com > Nickname: OldGrawp-O0-PIC > Buildstatus: OK > > New Test Passes: > test/CFrontend/2008-01-28-PragmaMark.c [DEJAGNU] > > > New Test Failures: > Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/except [LLC compile, ] >

This was the default version I got from public cvs last week. On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 03:44:19 -0600 (CST), Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Valery Khamenya wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > maybe it is of interest for someone: > > I successfully compiled llvm and gcc front-end sources at Gentoo Linux > > (even on exotic

> This test seems PARTICULARLY noisy for some reason. Take a look at this: > [...] > ... the native version swings from 3.13-3.34s and the llc-ls version > swings from 3.83-4.0s. The C backend is also noisy, swinging from > 3.98-4.58s. FWIW, these tests are on a Intel P4 Xeon 3.06Ghz machine with > HT enabled. In any case, it appears that we're slower than GCC on this one.

Building PowerPC.td register information header with tblgen Included from PowerPC.td:22: Parsing PowerPCInstrInfo.td:53: Variable not defined: 'GPRC'! make[3]: *** [PowerPCGenRegisterInfo.h.inc] Error 1 make[3]: Leaving directory `/pool/tmp/ssrc/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC' maybe I just have to "make clean" and/or ./configure BTW, would it be nice to put Depend, Release and

Hi, are there any attempts to use LLVM in graph-rewriting (term-rewriting) language implementations? How good is LLVM for this? E.g., is it natural to expect that the LLVM-based implementation of the language Concurrent Clean be any faster than its reference implementation? Best regards -- Valery A.Khamenya -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:32 AM, Evan Cheng wrote: > But I am using llvm-gcc-4.2. Any idea why it's failing? > > Evan All the failing testers are using gcc-4.0 according to the web pages they point at. > On Feb 16, 2008, at 11:24 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> On Feb 16, 2008, at 7:06 AM, Apache wrote: >>> New Test Failures: >>>

It's me. Our ISD::LABEL implementation has issues... Evan On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Jan 30, 2008, at 9:12 PM, Apache wrote: > >> http://llvm.org/nightlytest/test.php?machine=231&night=4754 >> Name: il0102a-dhcp80.apple.com >> Nickname: OldGrawp-O0-PIC >> Buildstatus: OK >> >> New Test Passes: >>

hi all, After having some discussions in the IRC, I am trying here to come up with a proposal for GSoC 2008 for improving the llvm nightly tester[1].Following are the ideas and suggestions that came up in the discussion, if you have any comment or any other suggestion please add them to the list. I have some doubts in some places. 1. Improvements to the perl script which manage actual testing

Hi all, web-browser access to cvs is of course nice, but is it possible to provide anonymous read-only access to llvm cvs? (it would be nice to have an ability just download last sources) P.S. BTW, this and previous my post were actually motivated by desire to find some simple example on JIT usage :) --- Valery A.Khamenya

Hi all, I think there is still too few docs/samples for those, who'd like to write JIT-based interpreters. Today, the real examples to learn from are rather: - lli.cpp - ModuleMaker.cpp - Stacker which is still unfortunatelly not that much about JITing :( Well, what I am going to sell: What about very small JIT-based example similar to ModuleMaker? I mean example, where, say, two