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

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++ skills). [sidenote: In FreeBSD -current, the memory allocator initializes memory with 0xa5

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++

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 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 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?

Hello, LLVM's IA-64 target has not been maintained for a few years, and it is currently unable to compile many simple testcases. I'm planning to remove it from the tree soon, unless someone objects. Dan

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

On Tue, 20 May 2008, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On May 20, 2008, at 1:45 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> The following IR is causing the assert: The issue here is that the IA64 backend doesn't have inline asm support yet. This should be pretty easy to add. Take a look at the X86 version: X86TargetLowering::getRegForInlineAsmConstraint it just maps "r" onto the GPR

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!

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. > >

On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > BTW: I don't run Linux at all, so no Linux/ia64 support. > I can see how that could be a problem for people. > > Anyway: my case is a weak one and I would understand if the > target get axed without considering my email/request... Hi Marcel, There are two levels of problems with the IA64 backend. On the first

Thanks for tracking this down! I can't seem to reproduce it on Linux, even with valgrind. Can you try out this patch and let me know whether it works? Nick Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > 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: >>>

On Jul 16, 2009, at 9:49 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> For us to keep IA64 around (and for it to be minimally useful for >> your >> work!), I think that the backend should pass most of the simple >> programs in MultiSource/Benchmarks for example. It does *not* need >> to >> produce amazingly fast code, but the code needs to work. I don't >>

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

[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 Jul 16, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > Hello, > > LLVM's IA-64 target has not been maintained for a few years, and it is > currently unable to compile many simple testcases. I'm planning to > remove it from the tree soon, unless someone objects. Ouch. The FreeBSD project is putting serious effort in getting the OS to compile with LLVM with a future possibility

Hi, I am running FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE-p7 and cannot build any Mozilla version from ports. The build exits for all versions at the same point. A source file called jsdtoa.c. Thanks.. Here is my error report: ******************************************************************************* cc -o jsdtoa.o -c -DOSTYPE=\"FreeBSD5\" -DOSARCH=\"FreeBSD\" -DEXPORT_JS_API

We have upgraded a box from 6.2 to 6.3-RELEASE. Afterwards the box does not recognize its ST Lab I-160 serial card with Netmos 9845 Chipset. It worked flawlessly on 6.2 with puc(4) driver. >From dmesg: pci1: <simple comms, UART> at device 8.0 (no driver attached) ~# pciconf -l -v | grep -B 4 UART none2@pci1:8:0: class=0x070002 card=0x00041000 chip=0x98459710 rev=0x01 hdr=0x00

On Jul 16, 2009, at 5:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2009, at 2:30 PM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> >> BTW: I don't run Linux at all, so no Linux/ia64 support. >> I can see how that could be a problem for people. >> >> Anyway: my case is a weak one and I would understand if the >> target get axed without considering my email/request...

On Jul 16, 2009, at 10:22 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > >> However, I do not want to go anywhere near trying to achieve optimal >> code generation right now. Getting functional completeness is as high >> as I dare to shoot. I presume that it'll be daunting enough. > > It depends a lot on your background, but yes it is a substantial > amount of work. Low-level