similar to: [LLVMdev] A quick update on FreeBSD support

On May 24, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > All, > > So far I've tried LLVM on amd64, i386, ia64 and powerpc under FreeBSD > and aside for ia64, things look pretty good for a first try. There > are 2 unexpected failures for PowerPC, which appear to be caused by > uninitialized memory. I'm still working on a fix for that (need to > brush up on my C++

On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. Many > of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these > allocations are? I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: FAIL: /nfs/llvm/src/llvm/test/Transforms/PredicateSimplifier/ 2006-11-04-ReplacingZeros.ll Failed with

All, The following IR is causing the assert: \begin{ll} ; ModuleID = 'x.bc' target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32- i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64- f80:128:128" target triple = "ia64-portbld-freebsd8.0" define void @__ia64_set_fast_math() nounwind { entry: tail call void asm sideeffect "mov.m

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: Nice!

[correction] On May 20, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > All, > > The following IR is causing the assert: > > \begin{ll} > ; ModuleID = 'x.bc' > target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32- > i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64- > f80:128:128" > target triple =

On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >>> Many >>> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >>> allocations are?

Hi. I rewrote the patch according to the comments. I adopted generating in-place code because it looks the quickest way. The point Eddie wanted to discuss is how to generate code and its ABI. i.e. in-place generating v.s. direct jump v.s. indirect function call Indirect function call doesn't make sense because ivt.S is compiled multi times. And it is up to pv instances to choose in-place

Hi. I rewrote the patch according to the comments. I adopted generating in-place code because it looks the quickest way. The point Eddie wanted to discuss is how to generate code and its ABI. i.e. in-place generating v.s. direct jump v.s. indirect function call Indirect function call doesn't make sense because ivt.S is compiled multi times. And it is up to pv instances to choose in-place

On May 25, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Could you try this (massively hacky) patch out to see if it fixes >> your >> problem? >> >> > Alas, it didn't fix the problem: > Crumbs. I think that the analysis I told you before wasn't fully correct. I think I mentioned something

On May 24, 2008, at 4:25 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 24, 2008, at 12:12 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> Let us know if you would like extra eyes on the two PPC failures. >> Many >> of us have a lot of experience with C++. :-) Do you know where these >> allocations are? > > I don't mind if people help out, so here's some information: > Could

Hi. The patch I send before was too large so that it was dropped from the maling list. I'm sending again with smaller size. This patch set is the xen paravirtualization of hand written assenbly code. And I expect that much clean up is necessary before merge. We really need the feed back before starting actual clean up as Eddie already said before. Eddie discussed how to clean up and suggested

Hi. The patch I send before was too large so that it was dropped from the maling list. I'm sending again with smaller size. This patch set is the xen paravirtualization of hand written assenbly code. And I expect that much clean up is necessary before merge. We really need the feed back before starting actual clean up as Eddie already said before. Eddie discussed how to clean up and suggested

On May 26, 2008, at 1:25 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On May 25, 2008, at 1:39 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> On May 25, 2008, at 12:58 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> Could you try this (massively hacky) patch out to see if it fixes >>> your >>> problem? >>> >>> >> Alas, it didn't fix the problem: >> > Crumbs. > >

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Now all the comments so far have been addressed, but only a few exceptions. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops.

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Please review and comments. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Please review and comments. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops strategy is appropriate too. Later I'll post the patchset which implements xen domU based on ia64/pv_ops. Currently only ia64/xen pv_ops implementation

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Changes from take 5 are rebased to Linux 2.6.26-rc3, bug fix ivt.S paravirtualization and multi entry point support. I believe these patches can be applied to the linux ia64 repository. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops

Hi. This patchset implements ia64/pv_ops support which is the framework for virtualization support. Changes from take 5 are rebased to Linux 2.6.26-rc3, bug fix ivt.S paravirtualization and multi entry point support. I believe these patches can be applied to the linux ia64 repository. On x86 various ways to support virtualization were proposed, and eventually pv_ops won. So on ia64 the pv_ops

This patch set is intended for the next merge window. They are just enhancements of the already merged patches or ia64 porting from x86 paravirt techniques and that their quality is enough for merge. This patch set is for binary patch optimization for paravirt_ops. The binary patch optimization is important on native case because the paravirt_ops overhead can be reduced by converting indirect