similar to: [LLVMdev] IR of LLVM

Hi, I want to know what benchmarks can LLVM compile and run successfully. Such as SPEC CPU2000, SPEC CPU2006 or other benchmarks. Thanks Shengmei -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091221/ed70efce/attachment.html>

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Li Shengmei <lism03 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > >          I want to know what benchmarks can LLVM compile and run > successfully. > > Such as SPEC CPU2000, SPEC CPU2006 or other benchmarks. llvm-gcc can compile essentially anything in C/C++. -Eli

Hi, all I use llvm-gcc -O4 to compile SPEC 2000, some benchmarks can't be built successfully, such as 164.gzip, 175.vpr etc. The error messages are as follows. .. zh.o unlzw.o unpack.o unzip.o util.o zip.o -o gzip bits.o: file not recognized: File format not recognized collect2: ld returned 1 exit status specmake: *** [gzip] Error 1 specmake options 2> options.err |

On 2009-12-23 08:22, Li Shengmei wrote: > > Hi, all > > I use llvm-gcc –O4 to compile SPEC 2000, some benchmarks > can’t be built successfully, such as 164.gzip, 175.vpr etc. > > The error messages are as follows. > > > > …… > > zh.o unlzw.o unpack.o unzip.o util.o zip.o -o gzip > > bits.o: file not recognized: File format not recognized

Hi, I am new to Clang. There is a warning when I use clang $llvmc -clang test.c "./bin/ld: warning: cannot find entry symbol mit-llvm-bc; defaulting to 00000000004003c0 llc: bitcode didn't read correctly." When I use lli to execute the test.bc as $lli test. bc The error message is "lli: error loading program 'test.bc': Bitcode stream should be a

Hi, all I come across the problem when building llvm. The errors are as follows ... etJITInfo&, llvm::JITMemoryManager*, llvm::CodeGenOpt::Level, bool)': : undefined reference to `__register_frame' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [/home/lishengmei/llvm-2.6/Release/bin/lli] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory `/home/lishengmei/llvm-2.6/tools/lli'

Hi Rafael, Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. They can be arbitrary strings that are known only to the specific back-end. It may be beneficial to define them inside of the LangRef document though. -bw On Oct 4, 2012, at 7:47 PM, Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: >> attrgroup #1 = { "long-calls", "cpu=cortex-a8", "thumb" }

Nobody give comments on this? Is the source to source transformation of LLVM robust enough? Thanks in advance. Shengmei _____ Problems of source to source transformation of LLVM Hi, I did experiments of the source transformation of LLVM on SPEC2000 C programs. But I found most benchmarks can't be transformed from source to source successfully. The steps are as

Hi, all Can we get the loop information in LLVM during compiling? In which phase or function we can obtain the loop related information? Thanks May

Hi, Link-Time Optimization has a problem. We need to preserve some of the flags with which the modules were compiled so that the semantics of the resulting program are correct. For example, a module compiled with `-msoft-float' should use library calls for floating point. And that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Goals ===== My goals for whichever solution we come up with are

On Dec 31, 2012, at 4:37 AM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > On 30/12/12 03:21, Bill Wendling wrote: >> Hi Rafael, >> >> Sorry, I forgot to respond to this. They can be arbitrary strings that are known only to the specific back-end. It may be beneficial to define them inside of the LangRef document though. > > this sounds so much

Hi Is there a way to associate additional info with every opcode like an id either through the td files or when building an instruction ? thanks shrey

On 13 August 2014 15:48, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> The above LLVM IR was confusing to me because I usually see that >> unnamed registers start counting from 1 (i.e. %1 = add ...). > > There's a (usually hidden) %0 representing the entry basic block > there. The general rule is "start from 0 and keep counting; skip named >

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Garrison Venn <gvenn.cfe.dev at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > Thanks for working on this. > > Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as > part of this effort? It already exists; there's some limited documentation in the LLVM source, but Rafael apparently forgot to add it to LangRef... -Eli

On 29 April 2012 18:44, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Link-Time Optimization has a problem. We need to preserve some of the flags with which the modules were compiled so that the semantics of the resulting program are correct. For example, a module compiled with `-msoft-float' should use library calls for floating point. And that's only the tip of

On 9/7/20 4:48 PM, Nicolai Hähnle wrote: > Hi Johannes, > > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2020 at 11:17 PM Johannes Doerfert > <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > As a separate comment, I don't find the reference to the C++ spec in >> >> > https://reviews.llvm.org/D86233 to be informative enough. Whenever >> >> > that

Hi, Looks like the memory_barrier intrinsic got removed in 3.0 and replaced with fence intrinsics. Could someone who understands this change better than me please update the 3.0 release notes? Also the LangRef still mentions llvm.memory.barrier but this is gone from 3.0. Best regards, --Edwin

Module-Level Attributes Overview -------- LLVM currently lacks the ability to specify an attribute on a module as a whole. This isn't typically a problem as most optimizations and code transformations rely upon more finer-grained information, such as function attributes. However, some transformations, in particular LTO, may need to know information about the module. As a side-benefit, it

After splitting `Metadata` apart from `Value`, I'm finally back to the first step [1] of representing debug info more directly in IR [2]: `MDLocation`. [1]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-October/078173.html "First-class debug info IR: MDLocation" [2]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-October/077715.html "Less memory and greater

On 9 February 2017 at 17:31, Amara Emerson <amara.emerson at gmail.com> wrote: > Ping. Does anyone else have thoughts on this? Hi Amara, It seems the people who replied in this thread are mostly in sync with the proposal, why don't you push a review in phab, and let's take this to the next level? cheers, --renato