similar to: [LLVMdev] Information generated by Bugpoint

Hi Nan Zhu, > I use Bugpoint to check it , Bugpoint gives me the following information: > > > Read input file : 'bodytrack.bc' > *** All input ok > Initializing execution environment: Found gcc: /usr/lib/ccache/gcc > Running the code generator to test for a crash: <cbe>*** Debugging code > generator crash! > > Error running tool: >

Hi Tanya, > 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects > directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a > pre-compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > 2) Run make check, report any failures (FAIL or unexpected pass). Note > that you need to

LLVMers, 2.6 pre-release2 is ready to be tested by the community. http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.6/ If you have time, I'd appreciate anyone who can help test the release. To test llvm-gcc: 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. 2) Run make check,

G'Day Tanya, Is it too late to bring in the following patches to fix some major brokenness in the AuroraUX tool chain for 2.6? http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84468&r2=84469&view=diff&pathrev=84469 http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/cfe/trunk/lib/Driver/Tools.cpp?r1=84265&r2=84266&view=diff&pathrev=84266

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:27 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > I continue playing with Intel MPX and its support in modern compilers. > All experiments were done on the Alienware (Dell) 15 R2, Ubuntu 15.10 > (linux 4.2.0), gcc version is 5.2.1, icc version 2016.1.150. The > benchmark suite is PARSEC 3.0, all versions with 1 thread and default

On Oct 20, 2009, at 6:02 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Tanya, > >> 1) Compile llvm from source and untar the llvm-test in the projects >> directory (name it llvm-test or test-suite). Choose to use a pre- >> compiled llvm-gcc or re-compile it yourself. > > I compiled llvm and llvm-gcc with separate objects directories. > Platform is x86_64-linux-gnu. > Ok.

Hi David, > Are the data below all collected when only one function is picked for > instrumentation? Yes, here is a list of the benchmarks and selected functions. +-----------------+----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | blks | _Z19BlkSchlsEqEuroNoDivfffffif |

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:12, David Greene wrote: > I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc (bugpoint > debug output below). I was using gcc 4.1.2. When I try 3.2.3 I get: bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:237: warning: conflicting types for built-in function `memcpy' bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c: In function `main':

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:31, David Greene wrote: > On Wednesday 16 July 2008 10:12, David Greene wrote: > > I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc > > (bugpoint debug output below). > > I was using gcc 4.1.2. When I try 3.2.3 I get: > > bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:237: warning: conflicting types for built-in > function

I'm having some trouble using bugpoint with newer version of gcc (bugpoint debug output below). I looked into the "conflicting type for malloc" problem and it doesn't seem easy to solve due to the unknown size of size_t (see LowerAllocations.cpp). The "void main()" problem is probably a result of this test being converted from Fortran. I'll have to dig into

Hi, I am trying to reduce what I believe to be a miscompilation bug. Running lli on my bitcode file causes a segmentation fault. However, running bugpoint as bugpoint file.bc gives me the following errors, /tmp/ccAdmNqH.o: In function `_ZL17bus_error_handleriP7siginfoPv': bugpoint-test-program.bc-Vega5s.cbe.c:(.text+0x1b4e1): undefined reference to `std::cerr' /tmp/ccAdmNqH.o: In

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 9:00 AM, David Greene <dag at cray.com> wrote: > What's the proper incantation to get bugpoint to run things through opt > but use llc to generate asm? As noted, CBE has issues generating > correct code so using it isn't an option right now. It should be something like bugpoint x.bc -llc-safe -pass1 -pass2 -pass3. The -llc-safe forces it to never

Hi Snehasish, thanks for writing up the proposal. As it stands today, path profiling still has serious scalability issue that prevents it from being usable by any optimization passes that may benefit from it. On the other hand, sampling based approach can still be promising. For instance, LBR can potentially together with static CFG constructed from the binary can be used to form path(let)

Hi I am pinging to find out if there is any interest to mentor this proposal for GSoC this year? I've submitted a draft via the GSoC website. David, Vedant it would be great if I could get some advice on refining the goals and particulars of the implementation. The version we use internally is not performance oriented and will require refactoring. Here is a link to the draft document [1].

Hello, David. > After hacking around in the CBE output I managed to compile it with > gcc, only to discover that gcc 4.1.2 has the SAME bug LLVM does with > respect to alignment. Automatic stack realignment was atted to X86 backend ~3 months ago. Everything should work with LLVM. If not - please fill out a PR. AFAIR, automatic stack realignment still does not land into gcc mainline

Hi, I have a program that runs when statically compiled using llc and gcc but crashes with a segmentation fault when run with lli. I am trying to debug it with bugpoint and the initial part of bugpoint seems to be suggesting that I am somehow missing the linking with the libraries having dlsym/dlopen although I am passing it to lli : *$ bugpoint -run-jit

On Wednesday 16 July 2008 13:28, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello, David. > > > After hacking around in the CBE output I managed to compile it with > > gcc, only to discover that gcc 4.1.2 has the SAME bug LLVM does with > > respect to alignment. > > Automatic stack realignment was atted to X86 backend ~3 months ago. > Everything should work with LLVM. If not -

On Thu, Feb 4, 2016 at 4:59 AM, Dmitrii Kuvaiskii < Dmitrii.Kuvaiskii at tu-dresden.de> wrote: > >> Recently I played with MPX support on Intel C/C++ Compiler (icc). This > >> implementation looks *much* better, with the following example > >> overheads: 1.2X on "raytrace", 1.25X on "bodytrack", 1.08X on > >> "streamcluster".

Hello, Dave > So I'm in a bit of a pickle. Does anyone know which versions of gcc > understand the cbe output? At least 3.4.6 and 4.2.x were ok. For semicolon problem - please file a PR. -- WBR, Anton Korobeynikov

On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 12:17 PM, Prakash Prabhu <prakash.prabhu at gmail.com> wrote: > Generating reference output from raw program: <cbe><gcc> > Error running tool: [snip] > /tmp/cc08IpX8.o: In function `SyLoadModule': > bugpoint-test-program.bc.cbe.c:(.text+0x25705): undefined reference to > `dlopen' [snip] This is saying that compilation with CBE is