similar to: [LLVMdev] Linux x86 testers needed!

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

Hello list! Tanya Lattner wrote: > 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've run the test last night to see how long it takes, and I can afford to cronjob it for the night. I didn't quite realize it would automatically

> I've run the test last night to see how long it takes, and I can > afford to cronjob it for the night. Great! > I didn't quite realize it would automatically send the report, but > it did [1] and there are a few test failure from the > Frontend{C,C++} directories. I suppose this is because I have > llvm-gcc4.0 2.1 installed, which might need to be upgraded. Is >

>> llvm-gcc4.0 is no longer supported, use llvm-gcc4.2. Please keep in mind >> that you need to keep llvm-gcc in sync with llvm (same revision number). > > This basically means llvm-gcc needs to be rebuild every time llvm > is built and the test run. Shouldn't this be part of > NewNightlyTest.pl then? Yes. Patches accepted ;) There is a GSOC student that is supposed

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/ Lauro

>>>> llvm-gcc4.0 is no longer supported, use llvm-gcc4.2. Please keep in mind >>>> that you need to keep llvm-gcc in sync with llvm (same revision number). >>> >>> This basically means llvm-gcc needs to be rebuild every time llvm >>> is built and the test run. Shouldn't this be part of >>> NewNightlyTest.pl then? >> >>

On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Tanya M. Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > >> llvm-gcc4.0 is no longer supported, use llvm-gcc4.2. Please keep in mind > >> that you need to keep llvm-gcc in sync with llvm (same revision number). > > > > This basically means llvm-gcc needs to be rebuild every time llvm > > is built and the test run.

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

Hello, I'm trying to compile to SPEC CPU2000 suite to LLVM bytecode, using the llvm-test harness. I have tried this using: - both the 1.7 and 1.8 releases, without succes (and running into the same problems in both releases) - both the gcc3 and gcc4 frontends I'm working on Linux/x86. LLVM is configured using: ./configure --prefix=/path/to/bin/dir and compiled using gmake; gmake

Please file a bug for this. Thanks, Tanya On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> > I managed to solve this problem myself.... The problem was not correctly > specifiying the SPEC CPU2000 source directory. configure says the dir was > found, but that doesn't mean the sources will be found. > For future reference: > > When you get the error: > > make[2]:

Hello LLVM-people, I've been trying (on and off) to compile the _full_ SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suite to LLVM bytecode. The biggest problem I'm facing is the Fortran benchmarks, for which some partial support is already available it seems (using f2c). Unfortunately the f2c compiler only allows the translation of Fortran-77 programs to C code (which is then compiled using llvm-gcc).

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 --

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

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

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >> Is >> there a specific version of llvm-gcc that is prefered for nightly >> tests? Shall I go with the latest stable one? 4.0 or 4.2? > llvm-gcc4.0 is no longer supported, use llvm-gcc4.2. Please keep in mind > that you need to keep llvm-gcc in sync with llvm (same revision number). This basically means llvm-gcc needs to be rebuild every time

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

Hi Kenneth, On Fri, 2007-04-06 at 08:55 +0200, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > Hi Reid, > > On 06 Apr 2007, at 04:51, Reid Spencer wrote: > > > All, > > > > Just in case you missed the construction of these pages, I thought > > you'd > > like to know about these new ones: > > > > http://llvm.org/DevMtgMay2007.html > > All the latest