similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM performance test

Hi Lauro, On 14 Aug 2007, at 01:10, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > Hi all, > > I did a performance test of two real applications (FFMPEG and GTK) on > ARM. For more details see: > http://laurovenancio.wordpress.com/2007/08/07/llvm-perf-tests/ Could you give me some more information about the applications you compiled and ran? Where can I obtain source codes, which input did

Hi all, I'm trying to make a toolchain for arm-linux-gnueabi using the llvm-gcc. To do this, I made some changes in crosstool 0.42. Everything goes fine until llvm-gcc tries to compile the glibc. llvm-gcc can't compile glibc because it doesn't support TLS (Thread Local Storage). I know there is a bug report about TLS (PR941). Is there someone implementing TLS in LLVM and llvm-gcc?

I have been wondering why llvm-ld generates the same code with or without the option "-O5" so I looked at its source (llvm 2.2). And apparently, the options "-On" are accepted but never used! The program runs a fixed set of optimization passes, unless "-disable-opt" is specified. What is the reason for this? If this is intended, then the documentation should say

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, HyperQuantum wrote: > I have been wondering why llvm-ld generates the same code with or without the option "-O5" so I looked at its source (llvm 2.2). And apparently, the options "-On" are accepted but never used! The program runs a fixed set of optimization passes, unless "-disable-opt" is specified. What is the reason for this? If this is

Hello, On Jun 3, 2008, at 08:52 , Tanya Lattner wrote: > All, > > We are in desperate need of linux x86 testers (32 or 64 bit). If you > could set one up, the LLVM project would be very grateful. Right now > we have virtually no testers covering this platform. I think I might be able to set up a nightly tester for Linux x86 (32- bit). Although I've been following LLVM for

Hi Everyone, I set up a page to host the videos and slides from the meeting, and uploaded all the videos: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2007-05/index.html So far, I only have one set of slides on the page - please send me your slides! :) Also, I'd appreciate it if someone would write a blurb describing an overview of the meeting, etc at the top. Also, Scott, please let me know when it's ok

All, We are in desperate need of linux x86 testers (32 or 64 bit). If you could set one up, the LLVM project would be very grateful. Right now we have virtually no testers covering this platform. Directions to set up a tester are here: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#nightly These directions could be improved of course. If you have any questions, I will be happy to assist you in

I just noticed this - I can't promise any particular amount of TLC, but I'll certainly be giving the Fortran front-end some attention as soon as LLVM moves to gcc 4.2. For future reference, does anyone know of a good free Fortran compiler test suite? Cheers, -mike On 5/14/07, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Duraid, > > > Does anyone know what the

Hi Everyone, A website refresh is long overdue, for a couple reasons: 1. The webpage hasn't changed substantially for years, but the project obviously has :) 2. The current web site is very cluttered. 3. The current site does not convey what LLVM is to new people very well. 4. The current site does not support "subprojects" at all. As such, I put together a prototype for a new

Hi folks, We recently generated some data that seemed interesting enough to share here. This is a comparison between compilers that ignores the performance of the generated code and focuses only on compiler correctness. volatile checksum errors errors avr-gcc-3.4 1.879% 0.378% avr-gcc-4.1 0.037% 0.256% avr-gcc-4.2

Adds external weak symbols of constant pool to ExtWeakSymbols set. Lauro -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20061220/1aaa0c7b/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: llvm.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 1021 bytes Desc: not available

without tabs Lauro 2006/12/20, Bill Wendling <isanbard at gmail.com>: > > Hi Lauro, > > Just a stylistic remark; In your "llvm.patch" file, there are tabs in > these lines: > > + if (GV->hasExternalWeakLinkage()) { > + ExtWeakSymbols.insert(GV); > + } > > Others will need to review the patch for correctness, though. >

I think, we must move function arguments lowering from frontend to LLVM core. This lowering is generating machine dependent bytecode. See http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1230 Lauro 2007/2/26, Chris Lattner <sabre at nondot.org>: > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007, Lauro Ramos Venancio wrote: > > The problem is: llvm-gcc generates the same bytecode for both functions: > > > >

On 31 Aug 2006, at 19:13, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > >> When I adjust the settings in Makefile.nagfortran as follows, I'm >> able to get bytecode file for lucas, galgel and facerec, but make >> still quits with an error (after generating >> bytecode files for 7 (out of 26) benchmarks. >> >> Also, the file

On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > Bummer. I think I'll contact the NAG support for more info on this. Can you > show me the content of your Makefile.nagfortran? It is identical to yours. > Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How can I > enforce this? Go into the directory for that benchmark, then run 'make' or whatever. -Chris --

The ARM EABI (AAPCS) defines: - i64 values are 8-bytes aligned - "The alignment of an aggregate shall be the alignment of its most-aligned component." So, struct ss { int x; int y; }; void f(int a, struct ss b); r0 <- a r1-r2 <- b void g(int a, long long b); r0 <- a r2-r3 <- b The problem is: llvm-gcc generates the same bytecode for both functions: declare void

On 31 Aug 2006, at 23:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> Bummer. I think I'll contact the NAG support for more info on >> this. Can you >> show me the content of your Makefile.nagfortran? > > It is identical to yours. > >> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >> can I >>

Hi Scott, On 18 Mar 2007, at 04:22, Scott Fortmann-Roe wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that LLVM had signed up as a mentoring organization for > Google's summer of code. LLVM looks like an exciting project that > overlaps some of my interests. > > I would be interested in developing an additional front end for a > language it does not currently support (I'm open to

Hi, I noticed that LLVM had signed up as a mentoring organization for Google's summer of code. LLVM looks like an exciting project that overlaps some of my interests. I would be interested in developing an additional front end for a language it does not currently support (I'm open to what language). I do not know much about what this entails in regards to what LLVM requires from its

On 17 Apr 2008, at 20:39, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 17 Apr 2008, HyperQuantum wrote: >> I have been wondering why llvm-ld generates the same code with or > without the option "-O5" so I looked at its source (llvm 2.2). And > apparently, the options "-On" are accepted but never used! The program > runs a fixed set of optimization passes, unless