similar to: [LLVMdev] An interesting comparison.

Geting a seg fault. Have not investigted the cause. rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/richard$ tar vfxz ~/Downloads/ellcc-mips-linux-2014-Mar-24-07-32-26.tgz rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/richard/ellcc/bin$ gdb ./ecc GNU gdb (GDB) 7.4.1-debian Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are

LLVM Weekly - #39, Sep 29th 2014 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/39>. Welcome to the thirty-ninth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

(Fixed the cfe email address) On 12/18/2015 09:34 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > On 18 December 2015 at 19:15, Richard Pennington via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> It turns out that it can with some simple patches. > This sounds really cool. I think we should seriously consider putting > these patches into LLVM mainline. > >> Information on

The clang/LLVM based ELLCC project (http://ellcc.org), after having reached a huge milestone ( http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=231) has now successfully compiled itself. The steps were: 1. Use gcc to build the compiler with Linux standard libraries. 2. Use ecc to build itself with libc++, libc++ABI, libunwind, musl, and compiler-rt 3. Use the newly built compiler to build itself again. One

You may also take a look at the ELLCC project (www.ellcc.org <http://www.ellcc.org/>). As far as I understand it they produce and package cross toolchains for a number of popular targets. - Matthias > On Aug 4, 2017, at 12:54 PM, Jonathan Roelofs via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On 8/4/17 1:14 PM, Goran Mekić via llvm-dev wrote: >> On

As part of my ELLCC project (http://ellcc.org), I build clang/LLVM on my native x86_64 Linux box and then use it to compile itself. For further sanity checking, I then use that copy to cross compile for other targets (arm, armeb, i386, microblaze, mips, mipsel, ppc, and x86_64). After updating to a recent TOT revision, r195452, I get a strange error when cross compiling for the i386:

Today the clang/LLVM based ELLCC compiler (http://ellcc.org) was able to compile an (almost) non-trivial C++ program for a bunch of LLVM supported targets with no gnu licensed libraries. http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=231 Next step: try to compile ELLCC with itself. :-) -Rich -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi cschen, Here are the test scripts which I written when I was developing ARM exception handling support: https://github.com/loganchien/libcxx-scripts The script should work on Debian wheezy (cross-compiling from amd64 to armhf.) In general, here are the necessary steps: 1. Get a working arm-linux-gnueabihf gcc/g++ toolchain (for the headers and libraries) 2. Setup the include search path

With all the talk about using lld on the list, I thought it would be interesting to try using it in my clang based ELLCC cross compilation tool chain. http://ellcc.org The change was simple, since I use configuration files to tell clang how to compile, where to find libraries, etc. I described the config files here: http://ellcc.org/blog/?p=13246 All I had to do was change the linker

A while back (2012) there were a few messages related to using YAML config files to set up how clang would build stuff, especially for cross compilers. My ELLCC project is entirely cross compilation focused, so today I decided to play around with the config file idea. Right now it only handles replacing a "-target foo" option with the options defined in the file foo in the

Hi, Did this make it into review / commit? It's probably too late for 3.6 if it didn't, but I'd love to see it in 3.7. It would also be nice if this support could be something a bit more general in LLVM, rather than specifically in clang, so that other llvm tools (e.g. llvm-objdump) could take advantage of a similar format for target description files if they need something more

Hi, I've been working on combining LLVM, clang, the NetBSD standard C library, compiler-rt, QEMU, GDB, and GNU binutils as a cross compilation environment. My goal is to target small embedded systems, but I think that what I'm working on may be of interest to other LLVM/clang developers as I have been able to use the environment to fix several code generation issues in LLVM. As of

On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Richard Pennington via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > With all the talk about using lld on the list, I thought it would be > interesting to try using it in my clang based ELLCC cross compilation tool > chain. http://ellcc.org > > The change was simple, since I use configuration files to tell clang how > to compile, where to

Eli Friedman wrote: > I haven't looked at the rest of the email carefully, but why aren't > you just implementing MULHU and MULHS? There's no point to > implementing the *MUL_LOHI variants if the processor doesn't have > them. I have implemented MULHU and MULHS. But if I take out my *MUL_LOHI stuff, the error I get is [~/ellcc/ellcc] main% ./nios2-elf-ecc -S test.c

On 11/27/2013 07:57 AM, Rob Stewart wrote: > On 26 November 2013 16:44, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: >> On 26 November 2013 15:36, Rob Stewart <robstewart57 at gmail.com> wrote: >>> $ clang -v -target armv7a-linux-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfloat-abi=soft >>> -mfpu=neon helloworld.c >> Hi Rod, > I'm honoured. (But Rob is also OK)

On 10/28/2016 05:27 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 28 October 2016 at 23:02, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Awesome results! > I'm surprised! LLD is barely working on ARM at the moment. :) > [snip] My mistake. ARM worked for small programs, but lld failed for clang with a bunch of these errors: /home/rich/ellcc-release/bin/ld.lld: error:

Well, at least it works on some programs across all arches. That was some great testing you've done for us. :-) Thanks! Renato On 28 Oct 2016 23:51, "Richard Pennington" <rich at pennware.com> wrote: > On 10/28/2016 05:27 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > >> On 28 October 2016 at 23:02, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >>

Richard Pennington wrote: > Eli Friedman wrote: > >> I haven't looked at the rest of the email carefully, but why aren't >> you just implementing MULHU and MULHS? There's no point to >> implementing the *MUL_LOHI variants if the processor doesn't have >> them. >> > > I have implemented MULHU and MULHS. But if I take out my

On Monday, March 05, 2012 02:29:56 AM Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Richard, > > > I had a little time on my hands this afternoon, so I stole the Clang/LLVM > > demo and modified it to allow compiling for several other targets: > > http://ellcc.org/demo > > does it use the correct header files for the target etc? > > Ciao, Duncan. Yes, it does. The header files

Dear Anton, Thanks for your help! I had a look to llvm (2.6) configure options but I couldn't find any way to specify cpu type, fpu ecc..Could you please give me any indication and/or example? I want to try llvm with Atmel's AT91SAM7X256 (core is ARM7TDMI ) Thank you again, pz 2010/1/9 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info>: > Hello > >> But I got the