similar to: [LLVMdev] Announce: LLVM/ia64 project on SourceForge

[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 =

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 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 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 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 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...

All, The following patch fixes the build breakage on FreeBSD/powerpc: Index: lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCJITInfo.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCJITInfo.cpp (revision 51432) +++ lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCJITInfo.cpp (working copy) @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ extern "C" void PPC64CompilationCallback(); #if (defined(__POWERPC__) ||

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?

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

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

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 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

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 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

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: Nice!

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 Jul 17, 2009, at 9:53 AM, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> >> At this point, I think we should remove the Itanium backend from >> mainline. I would be thrilled if you would take it and fix it up and >> get it working out of tree. If you get it working on significant >> programs (regardless of the performance of those programs) we'd >> definitely accept it

We (the NLUUG) are organising a conference in Amsterdam this September. During this SANE conference we have reserved an evening for a Free Software Bazaar. We invite many people to participate in this gathering of Free and Open Source software groups. The name "Bazaar" obviously originates from Eric Raymond's article: A place where software developers gather. A unique opportunity

hi all Iam a new comer in the centos world but i have created a personal wiki page that relate the following topics for centos 5.5 and i would like to share it with the community. the topics are installation and configuration of : - 1<http://173.255.201.188/wiki/mediawiki-1.16.0/index.php/Server_configuration#Configure_CENTOS> Configure