similar to: [LLVMdev] Problems of source to source transformation of LLVM

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 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 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 |

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

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > >> Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed >> below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few >> days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all >> who've helped fix things. >> >> We would like to try to get as many

Dear All, Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed below. Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few days ago have been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all who've helped fix things. We would like to try to get as many of these fixed as possible before I create the release branch (still scheduled for tomorrow, Friday). I'll

On Thu, 12 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > Here is a more complete list of regressions for the platforms listed below. > Some of the regressions from the previous list I emailed a few days ago have > been fixed or were false positives. Thanks to all who've helped fix things. > > We would like to try to get as many of these fixed as possible before I > create the release

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

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 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

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.

On Fri, 13 May 2005, John Criswell wrote: > These following regression tests are failing (didn't mention these before > because they're easy to spot in nightly tester emails): > > FAIL: /Users/criswell/llvm/test/Regression/CodeGen/Generic/print-arith-fp.ll: > FAIL: > /Users/criswell/llvm/test/Regression/CodeGen/X86/fast-cc-pass-in-regs.ll: > FAIL:

Hi, What is the best way to debug an llc crash using bugpoint? I am getting the following crash that I would like to reduce llc: /home/vadve/aggarwa4/llvm29/llvm-2.9/lib/MC/MCAsmStreamer.cpp:273: virtual void<unnamed>::MCAsmStreamer::EmitLabel(llvm::MCSymbol*): Assertion `Symbol->isUndefined() && "Cannot define a symbol twice!"' failed. 0 llc

Do something like this: bugpoint -run-llc <bitcode file> --tool-args -- <llc arguments> Cameron On May 23, 2011, at 1:33 PM, Arushi Aggarwal wrote: > Hi, > > What is the best way to debug an llc crash using bugpoint? > > I am getting the following crash that I would like to reduce > > llc: /home/vadve/aggarwa4/llvm29/llvm-2.9/lib/MC/MCAsmStreamer.cpp:273:

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

On May 6, 2004, at 12:01 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Wed, 5 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: >>>> 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. >> >> Interesting. Now that you mention it, I do recall thinking the loops >> that llvm

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:

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: > 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. Kenneth, In general, I am more than happy to help people on this list. It is good for the community and I enjoy helping people be successful

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'