similar to: [LLVMdev] Getting started question.

Hi all, I found enough to explain the behaviour that I encountered. If I'm correct, the bugs are just in the dejagnu-based test machinery, not in LLVM itself. There seem to be two issues: Issue 1 is that the CC, CFLAGS, CXX, and CXXFLAGS settings are not reflected in the site.exp file. I had CC=gcc-4.2 CFLAGS="-m32 -Wl,-melf_i386" CXX=g++-4.2 CXXFLAGS=$CFLAGS

Am Mittwoch, den 27.02.2008, 14:31 -0800 schrieb Dale Johannesen: > On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > All error messages refer to one of the following four > > instructions: > > pushl %ebp > > pushl %esi > > popl %ebp > > popl %esi > > It's always the same error, "suffix or operands invalid for > >

Hi all again, llvm is failing the 2006-11-30-NoCompileUnit and 2006-11-30-Pubnames tests on me. -m32 and --disable-multilib didn't change the outcome. Did I get the command wrong? I tried jo at kurier:~/Delta/llvm/test$ CFLAGS=--multilib make check See below for a transcript of the failed check. What next? Regards, Jo -- snip -- jo at kurier:~/Delta/llvm/test$ make check llvm[0]:

On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:49 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Hi all, > > I found enough to explain the behaviour that I encountered. If I'm > correct, the bugs are just in the dejagnu-based test machinery, not in > LLVM itself. Yep, I believe that. I haven't been following the whole thread very closely, what specific tests are affected here? Before making any significant and

I do not know the configury stuff well enough to answer this, can someone else help? On Feb 28, 2008, at 1:55 AM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Am Mittwoch, den 27.02.2008, 14:31 -0800 schrieb Dale Johannesen: >> On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >>> All error messages refer to one of the following four >>> instructions: >>> pushl %ebp

Hi, I try to compile LLVM and the GCC frontend for LLVM. The steps that I follow are first to compile LLVM and later to compile GCC front end. I tried to compile LLVM 1.8, 1.9 releases and the CVS versions. I tried to compile with different GCC compilers 3.4.0, 4.1.2 and 4.2.0 GCC compilers 3.4.0 and 4.2.0 fail compiling LLVM sources. GCC 4.1.2 works. I cannot compile GCC front end. When I

On Feb 27, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > Some additional info: > > I just found the .s files mentioned in the error message, and checked > them. All error messages refer to one of the following four > instructions: > pushl %ebp > pushl %esi > popl %ebp > popl %esi > It's always the same error, "suffix or operands invalid for >

What Vedant said -- the profiler runtime provides buffer API for profile dumping. Note that value profiling dumping is not yet supported for buffer API, but since you are using Front-end based instrumentation/profile-use, value profiler is not turned on by default anyway. David On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:29 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 19, 2017, at 5:16 PM,

The utils/NewNightlyTest.pl script seems to use LLVMGCCDIR in a way that is inconsistent with the top-level configure script. I would like to fix this but I don't want to break everyone's nightly tests. Can someone review the attached patch to make sure I'm not missing something? The NewNightlyTest.pl script checks the LLVMGCCDIR environment variable and uses it for two

Below I have pasted the latest design that we discussed... Now we would like to pick it up and do the implementation. 1) Is there any last change that we would like to add? 2) Has anyone been working on it? I haven't seen any thing new in the code so I assume the answer is no... Thanks Alireza Moshtaghi Senior Software Engineer Development Systems, Microchip Technology Subject: Troubling

Thank you So it does not seem to be relevant for what I’m trying to do. I’m doing something unconventional. The objective is to implement PGO and code coverage on a system that does not exit and does not have any file io, or any of stdc libraries that libclang-profile is using. (more like a kernel) So what I’m trying to do is instead of calling __llvm_profile_write_file () from the application,

I can't send the exact objects, but I'll try to reproduce. Thanks A On 11/16/20, 9:48 AM, "Fāng-ruì Sòng" <maskray at google.com> wrote: NetApp Security WARNING: This is an external email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 9:05 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza

I need to perform call graph analysis (after all modules are merged) to find which function calls which, and depending on the attributes that each function has and what functions call it, I may need to clone it and modify some of calls to that function to call the cloned function. Currently we are doing this in few acrobatic moves that span from an llvm-ld pass (to do call graph analysis) all the

Thank you Chris, That is great news... So his modifications are in llvm-2.2? How has Christopher tested them? Are there attributes or intrinsics that I can also use? A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Lattner Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:23 PM To: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] C

Previously we talked about adding new attributes to function to identify the promotion class. > sign_ext_from_i8, sign_ext_from_i16 > zero_ext_from_i8, zero_ext_from_i16 Aren't these attributes more applicable to return value? of course then the question would be if they are also applicable to parameters too? (because we use same attributes for parameters and return value)? or

This is a common pitfall: people think that .text is the first section of the traditional concept "text segment" (which does not apply with LLD layout and GNU ld's -z separate-code layout) You need to use --image-base=0 https://releases.llvm.org/10.0.0/tools/lld/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#breaking-changes On Mon, Nov 16, 2020 at 10:31 AM Moshtaghi, Alireza <Alireza.Moshtaghi at

I am trying to verify the generated DAG after converting from llvm to DAG, however I'm not sure if this is correct or not. Here is the situation: In order to get LLVM to lower to 8-bit I have to define only 8-bit registers and the pointer size also to be 8-bit. Doing so, the attached DAG is generated for a load:i16. I have problem understanding this DAG in two places: 1)As you can see the

So does that mean that LLVM can't lower automatically to 8-bit values? I tried defining 8-bit pointers in the subtarget using "p:8:8:8" but it asserts at line 566 of TargetData.cpp in the default case of TargetData::getIntPtrType() Is it difficult to add 8-bit support? A. -----Original Message----- From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On

On Sun, 2006-08-13 at 21:18 +0200, Bram Adams wrote: > Hi, > > Apparently there are two bugs in tools/llvmc/c: This tool is, as yet, unfinished. > > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:12: Error: Invalid top level configuration item > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c:28: Error: Expecting a program name > /.../llvm/tools/llvmc/c had 2 errors. Terminating. > > The first error relates to

On 2020-06-02, Moshtaghi, Alireza wrote: >Sorry for the cryptic code but I had to modify stuff from original >In the following example see the difference when you comment or uncomment the line in the linker script: >============ test.c ============= : >struct orphan_dummy_anno_s { > void (*func)(void); >}; > >static void dummy_export_dbg_log_init_f (void) __attribute__