similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM 2.6 -> SVN breaks this

I was playing with optimization switches to llc to see how fast I could get it to compile but it keeps barfing. Tinkering indicates that llc barfs particularly when -tailcallopt is given in combination with other flags. For example, without -tailcallopt works in a couple of ways: $ llc -O0 -f aout.bc -o aout.s $ llc -O0 --regalloc=local -f aout.bc -o aout.s But fails with -tailcallopt with

On Friday 13 November 2009 16:26:01 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:34 AM, Jon Harrop wrote: > >> Point 4 is the one that caused me trouble for some time. > >> Unfortunately > >> it causes a bad interaction with the optimiser, specifically the > >> 'simplifycfg' pass. What seems to happen is that since the function > >> you are

On Wednesday 25 November 2009 19:19:28 Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm using LLVM 2.6. Anyone recognise this as a bug in TCO fixed since then > or should I try to boil it down and submit it? I've come up with the following minimal repro that segfaults on my machine: define fastcc i32 @g({i32, {i32, i32}}) { %1 = extractvalue {i32, {i32, i32}} %0, 0 %2 = extractvalue {i32, {i32,

On Friday 20 November 2009 02:54:14 Dan Gohman wrote: > On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Are these barfs due to bugs in my generated code or is this parts of LLVM > > not honoring tail calls? > > It was a bug in LLVM, with emitting tail calls at -O0. It's now > fixed, as of r89444. Awesome, thanks. What about this one where the simple register

> > On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: >> I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any >> performance >> improvement from optimization passes... > > I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. > This example > function squares a complex number: Something is definitely wrong with the way

I've attached the module->dump() that our code is producing. Unfortunately this is the smallest test case I have available. This is before any optimization passes are applied. There are two separate modules in existence at the time, and there are no guarantees about the order the surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be some interaction between them? There shouldn't

1. lbeta and beta do not work properly: lbeta returns its first argument and beta gives the lbeta result. In names.c lines 245-6, the codes for these should be 2 and 3 instead of 1 and 2 2. crtl-C does not work (except the first time) on Red Hat elf Linux (which has many many other problems as well) nor on the previous version of Linux for Amiga. It worked on Slackware aout Linux and now works

1. lbeta and beta do not work properly: lbeta returns its first argument and beta gives the lbeta result. In names.c lines 245-6, the codes for these should be 2 and 3 instead of 1 and 2 2. crtl-C does not work (except the first time) on Red Hat elf Linux (which has many many other problems as well) nor on the previous version of Linux for Amiga. It worked on Slackware aout Linux and now works

The thread here should help. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-May/031624.html On May 28, 2010, at 6:35 AMPDT, Curtis Faith wrote: > I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. > > In particular, note in the code

Andy, Here is the left circular shift operator patch. I apologize to the reviewer in advance. The patch has a good bit of fine detail. Any comments/criticisms? Some caveats... 1) This is just the bare minimum needed to make the left circular shift operator work (e.g. no instruction combining). 2) I tried my best to select operator names in the existing style; please feel free to change them as

Hi all, I have the following code, When I run the code, it never terminate this is because of the while loop i am using. In general, if you need a loop for which you don't know in advance how many iterations there will be, you can use the `while' statement so here too i don't know the number how many iterations are there. So Can some one suggest me whats going on? I am using the

My compiler is generating a bunch of code including the following line: %57 = call fastcc i32 @aux(%1* %0, %1 %1, %1 %46, i32 0, %4 %2) ; <i32> [#uses=1] ret i32 %57 The program works fine as long as this isn't a tail call. If I compile via a .ll and insert "tail" by hand, the program segfaults. However, if I make it a tail call and return an undef i8* or void instead

On Thursday 19 February 2009 19:00:14 Jon Harrop wrote: > I'm toying with benchmarks on my HLVM and am unable to get any performance > improvement from optimization passes... I just disassembled some of the IR before and after optimization. This example function squares a complex number: let zsqr(r, i) = (r*r - i*i, 2*r*i) My compiler is generating: define fastcc i32 @zsqr({

I have some LLVM IR after the optimization passes defined in createStandardModulePasses with the optimization level set to 3. It contains what appears to me to be an easily optimizable branch statement. In particular, note in the code below that at the end of the "loop" BasicBlock that there is a conditional branch where in the false case, it branches to the label

This patch is just a (shameless) copy from bug #28 [1]. The original patch has been sitting there for a couple of years now, and it was based on Syslinux v 4.05. The patch I am posting here is just a re-base on v.6.03. Whichever inadequate formatting (tabs, trailing spaces...), or any kind of correction that was required for the original patch to be accepted, is probably still required now.

You gotta start somewhere I figure. I am enjoying wine 1.1.0 and have used it on and off mostly off for several years. Now I am getting serious and I haven't figured out the documentaiton. I got some bad advice from old docs which discouraged me. Anyway, where does one put the "native" dll's from one's windows installation? I know how to use winecfg to activate them and

On Tue, Mar 8, 2011 at 6:19 AM, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > Hi! > > I've attached a patch which takes care of the issues mentioned (and adds two > tests). > Index: test/Transforms/InstCombine/sext.ll > =================================================================== > --- test/Transforms/InstCombine/sext.ll (revision 127153) > +++

Hi, I've got what I think is a pretty weird problem. I'm using redhat 8.0 and their latest samba rpm 2.2.7. I have a directory /virtuals/SAMARCAN/asterion_caen/hd4008/tiffout with about 600 tiff files in it. When I go this directory and try and delete them, it deletes about 100 of them or so, but while this is going on, it says:

On Nov 19, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Jon Harrop wrote: > > Are these barfs due to bugs in my generated code or is this parts of LLVM not > honoring tail calls? It was a bug in LLVM, with emitting tail calls at -O0. It's now fixed, as of r89444. Dan

Hi Samba Support, I'm in an all Windows environment with about 60 Win XP workstations and 10 Win 2K Pros, served by a Win 2K Server and have mails on Exchange 2000. But Mine!! and I mean Mine! stability is a problem! I read about the ability of Samba as a PDC. Please I need to implement this technology quickly to the situation and buttress my initial arguement that the right choice was an X