similar to: [LLVMdev] qualitative comparison of correctness of llvm and gcc

Hi John, > A "volatile error" indicates a case where a compiler failed to respect > the volatile invariant. The volatile invariant is simply that changing > the optimization level of a strictly conforming C program must not > change the number of dynamic loads or stores to any variable that is > volatile-qualified in the compiler's input. We check this with a hacked

Hi Duncan- > does this also check that writes are atomic: that they are performed in > one processor operation? Can you elaborate a bit? I don't think volatile has any atomicity requirements. Of course I can make a struct, an int128_t, or whatever volatile (on AVR even an int16_t is updated non-atomically!). Lack of atomicity is one of many problems with using volatile as a basis

Hi John, > > does this also check that writes are atomic: that they are performed in > > one processor operation? > > Can you elaborate a bit? I don't think volatile has any atomicity > requirements. Of course I can make a struct, an int128_t, or whatever > volatile (on AVR even an int16_t is updated non-atomically!). that's not entirely true in practice: if

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

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

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 --

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 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

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

Thank you for both of your input. Yes, I try to cross-compile for AVR, the simple ATMEGA328P used in every Arduino Uno. My main motivation being that I hope to be able to use a couple of STL containers, <functional> and <type_traits> on the MCU. Not sure though if this can be reached by going via the clang route. Getting back to the compilation: when I run clang with both both

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

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

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 details on the 25th May Developer's meeting. Page modified daily! http://llvm.org/Users.html A list of organizations using LLVM. If you want on this page send the details here. http://llvm.org/SVNMigration.html

Hi everyone, I've been wondering how to correctly build clang/LLVM for the AVR target architecture. Unfortunately documentation is very scarce (or outdated or I didn't find it) and while I've been able to build clang/LLVM for AVR I'm still falling short of compiling an actual binary for the MCU. Here are the steps I've undertaken so far: git clone

Am 04.03.20 um 11:16 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this > should be simple. > > Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so > on stored? > > > At the moment, this is not implemented in LLVM; these details are left > to the frontend. Clang/compiler-rt does not

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