similar to: [LLVMdev] I don't seem to be getting mail from llvm-commits, is anyone?

Dear Dale, The last email from the commits list is from you at 11:48 am (Central Time). Have you (or anyone else) made any other commits since? -- John T.

On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:30 AMPST, Aaron Gray wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com > > wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> > wrote: > These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the > legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the > legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from > another source, you need to configure --with-externals=<path> Okay, thanks. Thre should be better warning/error reporting though. Aaron > >

On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:59 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > >> I'm running into a problem where I need to have the "gcc" that's >> executed by "bugpoint" take certain arguments that aren't applicable >> to "llc". So, I came up with this patch, that adds a new flag >>

Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:30 AMPST, Aaron Gray wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com<mailto:aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com>> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com<mailto:dalej at apple.com>> wrote: > These benchmarks are not distributed with

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:40 AMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:59 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote: >> >>> I'm running into a problem where I need to have the "gcc" that's >>> executed by "bugpoint" take certain arguments that aren't applicable >>> to

On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > > On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > >> In many places there is code that looks like: >> >> MBBI = next(MBBI); >> >> In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when these >> calls are made. And due to ADL the above call becomes ambiguous: >>

On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at googlemail.com > wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 6:09 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com> wrote: > >> These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the >> legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from >> another source, you need to configure

On Nov 16, 2009, at 10:49 AMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: > On Nov 16, 2009, at 1:43 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > >> >> On Nov 14, 2009, at 3:16 PMPST, Howard Hinnant wrote: >> >>> In many places there is code that looks like: >>> >>> MBBI = next(MBBI); >>> >>> In C++0X there is a std::next that is likely to be in scope when

Is it possible to add any flags to this command so that the resulting compile runs perfectly fine (-c builds, but does not work)? llvm-gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wuninitialized -Wsign-compare -Wno-pointer-sign -Wformat-security -fno-builtin-memset -emit-llvm <filename.c> where <filename.c> contains #include <stdio.h> int main() { exit(0); } Thanks

On Feb 26, 2009, at 10:16 AMPST, Brice Lin wrote: > Is it possible to add any flags to this command so that the resulting > compile runs perfectly fine (-c builds, but does not work)? > > llvm-gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wuninitialized > -Wsign-compare -Wno-pointer-sign -Wformat-security -fno-builtin-memset > -emit-llvm <filename.c> > > where

On Dec 23, 2008, at 11:03 AMPST, Marc de Kruijf wrote: > > I'm writing a back-end for an architecture that supports multi-word > loads. As a concrete example, "ldqw r0, [addr]" would load a > quadword (4 words) into 4 registers starting with r0 (implicit > writes to r1, r2, and r3). ARM has this. It currently works by creating such instructions in a

Hi Dale, Thanks for getting back. I may not be able to switch to llvm 4.2 at this time. I did try: llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c sumarray.c -o sumarray.bc llc -march=ppc32 sumarray.bc gcc -arch ppc sumarray.s And this produced a ppc binary that worked (at least in this case). Do you know if this approach is worthwhile? Thx, Jose -----Original Message----- From: Dale Johannesen [mailto:dalej at

These benchmarks are not distributed with llvm (which doesn't have the legal right to distribute Spec, for example). If you have them from another source, you need to configure --with-externals=<path> On Feb 23, 2009, at 10:02 AMPST, Aaron Gray wrote: > Hi, > > I am getting this when running make-test :- > > $ /usr/src/llvm-test-2.5/configure > checking for

Hi, I am getting this when running make-test :- $ /usr/src/llvm-test-2.5/configure checking for spec95 benchmark sources... no, not found in /home/vadve/shared/ben chmarks/spec95/benchspec checking for spec2000 benchmark sources... no, not found in /home/vadve/shared/b enchmarks/speccpu2000/benchspec checking for spec2006 benchmark sources... no, not found in /home/vadve/shared/b

I'm writing a back-end for an architecture that supports multi-word loads. As a concrete example, "ldqw r0, [addr]" would load a quadword (4 words) into 4 registers starting with r0 (implicit writes to r1, r2, and r3). First, is there any currently supported architecture that has anything like this? I suspect not. If not, I hope someone might help me figure out how to make this

On Jan 29, 2010, at 2:55 PMPST, Jose Rangel wrote: > Hi Dale, > > Thanks for getting back. I may not be able to switch to llvm 4.2 at > this > time. I did try: > > llvm-gcc --emit-llvm -c sumarray.c -o sumarray.bc > llc -march=ppc32 sumarray.bc > gcc -arch ppc sumarray.s > > And this produced a ppc binary that worked (at least in this case). > > Do you

Oh... :( Are there any plans to change this? It's needed for a correct implementation of C, after all. On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Russell, > >> Suppose you have something like 'struct foo { char data[10000000]; }', >> and you want to pass such objects as function parameters, and return >> them as

Dale Johannesen wrote: > On Feb 6, 2009, at 8:52 PM, Patrick Simmons wrote: > > >> Hi, >> >> I'm trying to run the tests in llvm-suite, but I've run into trouble. >> First, I had the llvm-suite checkout in a directory alongside the llvm >> compiler checkout, but, when I ran "make" from llvm-suite, it >> complained >> about

On Oct 11, 2008, at 12:49 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > On Friday 10 October 2008 20:29:49 Michael wrote: >> What command and options should be used to convert C++ to C? > > Try this: > > llvm-gcc -c -O3 -emit-llvm file.cpp -o - | llc -march=c -o - > > It should spray C code to standard out. Bear in mind that if you use features from the C++ library, you are still going