similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem while compling SPEC2000 with llvm-gcc

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, 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'

On Fri, 30 Apr 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: > Thanks! Grabbed the latest from CVS and added that linker option to the > config file. It looks like it compiles and runs the SPEC tests ok now. Great! > Just to make sure I understand how LLVM works, got a few clarifications: > > 1. The ppc code I'm generating with the -native-cbe is static, correct? Yes, it's purely static

> > There are two problems with this: 1) there is no JIT for PPC yet, so > LLVM will use the interpreter (which is intolerably slow and has other > issues). 2) Spec compiles the executables in one place and them moves > them to another, but it only copies the shell script and not the > bytecode file, so you get that error message. > > The normal solution to this problem

Hi, I have looked at the LLVM code generation quality using small test cases and in general it is better than I thought and in some cases better than gcc. However, there are still some gap in SPEC performance. I have not looked at the root cause of those gaps. Anyone who cares about LLVM performance need to take this seriously. For fair comparison, I used -fno-strict-aliasing in gcc to turn off

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'

Are there any results for the SPEC2000 benchmarks using llvm with and without LTO? It would be interesting to know how the current LTO in llvm compares to the results being seen in current gcc trunk with their LTO... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-10/msg00155.html It would appear that the gcc LTO implementation is finally showing results (although with a lot of wrong code results). I assume we

Thanks David. Unfortunately many of us cannot use GPL v3 gcc so it's hard for us to investigate this. One question, can you tell if gcc is inlining significantly more than llvm? We have reports that this is one of the issue plaguing eon performance. There are also some relatively well known spec optimizations that we haven't implemented. e.g.

Hi, guys, I am comparing the performance of the default scheduler (seems to be the one that minimizes register pressure) with no scheduler (-pre-RA-sched=none), and I got these numbers. The ratio is low_reg_pressure/none, that is, the lower the number, the better the performance with low register pressure: CFP2000/177.mesa/177.mesa 1.00 CFP2000/179.art/179.art

Hi Gerolf, Sorry for the delayed response. I had to get permission to share more details. I am allowed to share relative numbers but not absolute numbers. Any missing test is due to runtime failures (e.g., gcc failure due to the fused multiply pattern bug which Tim fixed later on). Thanks, Ana. Benchmarks ARM64 vs GCC 4.9 % ARM64 vs AArch64 % ARM64 vs AArch64 patched %

On 31 Aug 2006, at 23:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> Bummer. I think I'll contact the NAG support for more info on >> this. Can you >> show me the content of your Makefile.nagfortran? > > It is identical to yours. > >> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >> can I >>

On 01 Sep 2006, at 10:05, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > >> >>> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >>> can I >>> enforce this? >> >> Go into the directory for that benchmark, then run 'make' or >> whatever. > I tried tom compile each of the SPEC CPU2000 benchmarks using the make command is each respective

Hello, Some problems were solved, new ones arised... Getting closer though... The fixes for the previous problems are at the bottom of this email, bug reports will be submitted when all problems are solved. +++ New/remaining problems +++ Currently, 9/26 benchmarks compile and run succesfully. One (fma3d) still has a f95 related problem (see below). The other 16 are divided into two groups:

Hi, all We want to learn the IR of LLVM. Are there any information or documents you can suggest? Or any suggestions are welcome. Thanks Shengmei -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091211/0a788413/attachment.html>

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>

I wouldn't normally post this to the asterisk mailing list but I'm really stuck... I've been trying to get meetme working on and off for a few months now but I always hit a brick wall when trying to compile. I keep seeing this... make linux26 cc -I. -O4 -g -Wall -DBUILDING_TONEZONE -DSTANDALONE_ZAPATA -DZAPTEL_CONFIG=\"/etc/zaptel.conf\" -c -o gendigits.o

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > syntactic loops). Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. I took this very simple C function: int Array[1000]; void test(int

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

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

Dear guys, I am writing some scripts to allow me to compile the programs in SPEC2000 using llvm-gcc. I have been successfull with almost all of them, but need some help with 254.gap. I am producing a .bc file using llvm-gcc, and then a .s using llc. Then I use gcc to produce an executable. In this last phase, I am getting: /usr/bin/ld: Undefined symbols: _SyLibname _SyMemory _SyTime