similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm broken?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] llvm broken?"

2010 Aug 25
2
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
Hi, I'm looking for some feedback on the changes represented in the attached patches, which I'll describe below. I'm sending this to both the LLVM and Clang list because it affects both, though the main focus here is LLVM. Basically, I've partially implemented some changes for choosing multiple alternative constraints largely on the LLVM side. The Clang change is to output the
2010 Aug 27
0
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
On Aug 25, 2010, at 12:45 PM, John Thompson wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking for some feedback on the changes represented in the > attached patches, which I'll describe below. > > I'm sending this to both the LLVM and Clang list because it affects > both, though the main focus here is LLVM. > Basically, I've partially implemented some changes for choosing
2010 Aug 30
2
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
Dale, Thanks for reviewing this. I have some newbie questions regarding the test-suite for you or anyone: I'm trying to run the test-suite as described in the "LLVM Testing Infrastructure Guide" on a Ubuntu x86 64 bit system. Initially I ran into problems with missing tools like yacc, which I fixed as I went along until the make at the test-suite level completed. However, I get
2010 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
CBE is fairly broken everywhere AFAIK, don't worry about it. Most of the JIT failures are in tests that exercise exception handling. Not sure if that is supposed to work in your environment, it works in some JITs and not others. The LLC failures are cause for concern. On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:59 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks for reviewing this. > > I have
2010 Aug 30
2
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in
2010 Aug 30
0
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The
2010 Sep 01
2
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this
2010 Sep 02
0
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the > test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 > 64 bit box. > > When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the > LLVM side? In principle, yes, I'd like to rereview if it's changed. > My
2010 Sep 02
2
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
Dale, Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against today's trunk. However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in llvm/test on x86 Linux 64 today. But it's the same on an unmodified tree, so I guess I'm still okay. It passed at one point for me with these changes. -John On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com>
2010 Sep 02
0
[LLVMdev] [REQUEST FOR FEEDBACK] Inline asm multiple alternative constraints
Actually the 2.8 fork is coming up tomorrow and I'm thinking maybe we should wait until after that. Is this something you really want to get in 2.8? On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:29 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against > today's trunk. > However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in
2008 Sep 26
4
[LLVMdev] build failure in Attributes.h
I'm seeing a build failure... In file included from /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/ Attributes.cpp:14: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/Attributes.h: In member function 'llvm::Attributes llvm::AttrListPtr::getParamAttributes(unsigned int) const': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/Attributes.h:152: error: 'assert' was not declared in this scope
2008 Jan 02
1
[LLVMdev] problems found with make check on x86 darwin9
FAIL: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/test/CFrontend/2007-09-20- GcrootAttribute.c Failed with exit(1) at line 3 while running: /Volumes/mrs5/Packages/llvm-2/bin/llvm-gcc -emit-llvm - S -emit-llvm /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/test/CFrontend/2007-09-20- GcrootAttribute.c -o - | llvm-as llvm-as: assembly parsed, but does not verify as correct! Enclosing function does not specify a collector algorithm.
2007 Dec 15
1
[LLVMdev] strict aliasing in SPU land
/Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/CellSPU/ SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp: In function 'bool<unnamed>::isFPS16Immediate(llvm::ConstantFPSDNode*, short int&)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/CellSPU/ SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp:141: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict-aliasing rules In file included from
2008 Sep 26
0
[LLVMdev] build failure in Attributes.h
Works for me. Presumably #including <cassert> will fix it though? On Sep 26, 2008, at 4:30 PMPDT, Mike Stump wrote: > I'm seeing a build failure... > > In file included from /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/VMCore/ > Attributes.cpp:14: > /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/include/llvm/Attributes.h: In member > function 'llvm::Attributes >
2009 Jan 02
2
[LLVMdev] new warnings in -r61596
2 new warnings in llvm: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function 'bool llvm::LLParser::ParseGlobal(const std::string&, const char*, unsigned int, bool, unsigned int)': /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:446: warning: 'IsConstant' may be used uninitialized in this function
2007 Dec 20
2
[LLVMdev] random warnings
They looked real enough to me: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/CellSPU/SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp: In function ‘bool<unnamed>::isFPS16Immediate(llvm::ConstantFPSDNode*, short int&)’: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/CellSPU/SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp: 148: warning: dereferencing type-punned pointer will break strict- aliasing rules
2018 Jul 25
2
are the LLD libraries thread safe?
E.g. Is it intended to be allowed to call lld::elf::link in 2 different threads at the same time? Follows is an example Valgrind error I ran into when doing the above. I'll try putting a global resource lock on invoking LLD and see if it solves the problem. ==5467== Invalid write of size 8 ==5467== at 0x525509: llvm::DenseMapBase<llvm::DenseMap<llvm::CachedHashStringRef, int,
2008 Aug 20
1
[LLVMdev] new warning in InstructionCombining.cpp
/Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/ InstructionCombining.cpp: In member function ‘llvm::Instruction*<unnamed>::InstCombiner::visitAnd (llvm::BinaryOperator&)’: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/ InstructionCombining.cpp:3597: warning: ‘RHSCC’ may be used uninitialized in this function /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/
2018 Jul 25
2
are the LLD libraries thread safe?
Hi Andrew, LLD relies on various bits of global state which are manipulated during the link, so I wouldn't expect it to be thread safe at that level, although it does attempt to reset that global state at the start of each call to link(), so it should be callable sequentially. Regards, James On 25 July 2018 at 02:37, Andrew Kelley via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
2008 Jan 30
2
[LLVMdev] no build, no joy
llvm[3]: Compiling SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp for Debug build In file included from /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm/lib/Target/CellSPU/ SPUISelDAGToDAG.cpp:334: /Volumes/mrs5/net/llvm/llvm-build/lib/Target/CellSPU/ SPUGenDAGISel.inc: In member function ‘llvm::SDNode* SPUDAGToDAGISel::Emit_5(const llvm::SDOperand&, unsigned int, unsigned int, llvm::MVT::ValueType, llvm::MVT::ValueType)’: