similar to: [LLVMdev] using llvm-ld with existing libraries

On Saturday 31 January 2009 03:42:04 Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 5:43 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst > > tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 > > flag > > The -msse3 flag? Does the -msse2 flag have a similar effect? Yes: $

I just remembered an anomalous result that I stumbled upon whilst tweaking the command-line options to llvm-gcc. Specifically, the -msse3 flag does a great job improving the performance of floating point intensive code on the SciMark2 benchmark but it also degrades the performance of the int-intensive Monte Carlo part of the test: $ llvm-gcc -Wall -lm -O3 *.c -o scimark2 $ ./scimark2 Using

----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Harrop" <jon at ffconsultancy.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 6:56 AM Subject: [LLVMdev] Performance vs other VMs > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark > the > performance of various VMs using the SciMark2

What exactly are the current limitations for using -O4 to create shared libraries with llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 2.5? I tried a build of xplor-nih at -O4 with llvm-gcc, llvm-g++ and llvm-gfortran. The build fails to link shared libraries with errors such as... Building xplor-nih for platform: Darwin_9_x86 [ -d /Users/howarth/xplor-nih-2.21/bin.Darwin_9_x86/ ] || mkdir

Using -O4 requires support from the system linker, because the files written out are LLVM bitcode files rather than object files. --Owen On Dec 29, 2007, at 11:43 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > What are the current limitations of using -O4 in > llvm-gcc-4.2? As a first test, I compiled the molscript > program first as -O3 and it works fine. However if i > try to compile the same code

On Feb 2, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > On Monday 02 February 2009 20:37:47 you wrote: >> On Feb 2, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: >>> On Monday 02 February 2009 06:10:26 Chris Lattner wrote: >>>> I'm seeing exactly identical .s files with -msse2 and -msse3 on the >>>> scimark version I have. Can you please send the output of:

The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the performance of various VMs using the SciMark2 benchmark on an 8x 2.1GHz 64-bit Opteron and I have published the results here: http://flyingfrogblog.blogspot.com/2009/01/mono-22.html The LLVM results were generated using llvm-gcc 4.2.1 on the C version of SciMark2 with the following command-line options: llvm-gcc

On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 08:29:07PM -0500, Peter O'Gorman wrote: > On 04/10/2010 08:01 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > > > bash-3.2$ GCC=/sw/bin/gcc-4 CC=gcc-4 CXX=g++-4 CFLAGS=-I/sw/include CXXFLAGS=-I/sw/include LLVM_CONFIG=/sw/lib/llvm/bin/llvm-config make > > g++-4 -c -I/sw/lib/llvm/include -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -MD

I've created fink packaging for a building the llvm and llvm-gcc-4.2 svn pulls under fink on Mac OS X. Hopefully the fink info script and patch should be clear enough for some comments on my build approach. The llvm-gcc and llvm-g++ compilers seem okay so far. The llvm-gfortran compiler seems to always spew a warning.. WARNING: 128-bit integers not supported! ...even when just compiling a

This is not a quite fair comparison. Other virtual machines must be doing garbage collection, while LLVM, as it is using C code, it is taking advantage of memory allocation by hand. On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:56 PM, Jon Harrop <jon at ffconsultancy.com> wrote: > > The release of a new code generator in Mono 2.2 prompted me to benchmark the > performance of various VMs using the

What are the current limitations of using -O4 in llvm-gcc-4.2? As a first test, I compiled the molscript program first as -O3 and it works fine. However if i try to compile the same code as -O4, the build fails with... ar -cru clib.a args.o str_utils.o dynstring.o err.o indent.o vector3.o matrix3.o quaternion.o body3d.o extent3d.o io_utils.o colour.o key_value.o named_data.o double_hash.o

On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:29:28AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > >> bash-3.2$ GCC=/sw/bin/gcc-4 CC=gcc-4 CXX=g++-4 CFLAGS=-I/sw/include CXXFLAGS=-I/sw/include LLVM_CONFIG=/sw/lib/llvm/bin/llvm-config make >> g++-4 -c -I/sw/lib/llvm/include -D_DEBUG -D_GNU_SOURCE -D__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS -D__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS -MD -MP -DIN_GCC -DREVISION=\"100954M\"

Anton, With regard to the gfortran test cases which don't fail on x86_64 Linux, these are the exact gfortran.log entries for them under i686 Darwin9... > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_12.f90 -O0 (internal compiler error) > FAIL: gfortran.dg/array_constructor_12.f90 -O0 (test for excess errors) Executing on host:

On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 03:58:19PM -0800, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Feb 19, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Jack Howarth wrote: > > > Is anyone able to bootstrap llvm-gcc42 svn on x86_64-apple-darwin10? Currently it is > > failing here with... > > It was broken. I think I've fixed it in reverting 125960. > > -eric Eric, The llvm-gcc42 bootstrap is fixed in

I'm on Debian Etch and re-compile llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 from scratch. I'm on svn revision 46813. I'm using the following commands for the compilation: ---------------------------------- # Get the sources mkdir /s/llvm cd /s/llvm svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk /s/llvm/svn.llvm svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm-gcc-4.2/trunk /s/llvm/svn.gcc42 # Compile llvm

Hi, > if /bin/sh ./libtool --mode=compile /s/llvm/obj.gcc42/./gcc/xgcc -B/s/llvm/obj.gcc42/./gcc/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/include -isystem /usr/local/i686-pc-linux-gnu/sys-include -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I/s/llvm/svn.gcc42/libgomp -I. -I/s/llvm/svn.gcc42/libgomp/config/linux/x86

The curent llvm svn (r54623) is unable to link the gfortran compiler in llvm-gcc-4.2 svn. I am getting the error... c++ -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \

Duncan, Actually, shouldn't this be just an error in the Makefile.in or Makefile.am? Why should a link line like... c++ -g -O2 -mdynamic-no-pic -DIN_GCC -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -pedantic -Wno-long-long -Wno-variadic-macros -Wno-overlength-strings -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -mdynamic-no-pic -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -o f951 \

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Jack Howarth <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Jack Howarth > <howarth.mailing.lists at gmail.com> wrote: >> I finally got around to testing this on a Bloomfield processor (Early >> 2009 MacPro 2x2.66 GHz dual-quad core) and the regressions from >>

Chris, Thanks. I am going to update the fink llvm and llvm-gcc42 packages I maintain to the 2.6 release so this will help. Is clang updated in unison with llvm/llvm-gcc-4.2 and is there much new that isn't in Xcode 3.2's clang? I was considering creating clang packaging for fink as well (if the releases were coordinated and the c++ support was decent yet). Jack On Thu,