similar to: [LLVMdev] Splitting floating point intervals.

Hello Jakob, Please find the bitcode attached as FileUtilities.bc. Thanks Galina From: Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> Date: Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 03:22 Subject: [LLVMdev] Bitcode from build-self-4-mingw32 To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> The buildbot build-self-4-mingw32 is failing with an assertion: Assertion failed: (isStackEmpty()

The buildbot build-self-4-mingw32 is failing with an assertion: Assertion failed: (isStackEmpty() && "Stack not empty at end of basic block?"), function processBasicBlock, file /Users/buildslave/zorg/buildbot/smooshlab/slave/build-self-4-mingw32/llvm.src/lib/Target/X86/X86FloatingPoint.cpp, line 305. Could anyone produce a bitcode file for that failure, please? --------------

Hi Guys, I was working on some floating point intensive benchmarks and realize that the floating point register allocation in llvm assumes that there are only 7 floating point registers in X86, whereas the hardware has 8. Line number 00266 assert(Reg >= X86::FP0 && Reg <= X86::FP6 && "Expected FP register!"); of X86FloatingPoint.cpp. Is there any reason for

On May 25, 2011, at 11:09 AM, aparna kotha wrote: > Hi Guys, > > I was working on some floating point intensive benchmarks and realize that the floating point register allocation in llvm assumes that there are only 7 floating point registers in X86, whereas the hardware has 8. > > Line number > 00266 assert(Reg >= X86::FP0 && Reg <= X86::FP6 &&

On Jan 20, 2012, at 1:58 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > The integer runtime functions (_allmul, _alldiv, etc. for 64-bit > integer arithmetic) all appear to be straight-up stdcall. _ftol2 is > the only weird one. (There is an _ftol routine with the same calling > convention as _ftol2, but AFAIK it's only for backward compatibility > with older MSVC runtimes.) I'm far from an MSVC

On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:12 AM, Joe Groff wrote: > 2012/1/19 Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>: >> How many of these libcalls do you need to implement? What exactly is the calling convention? Which registers are clobbered etc. > > There is only one (that I know about so far). The MSVCRT `_ftol2` > function implements floating-point-to-unsigned conversion for i386

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > Alright.  We definitely don't want to model it as a general call, then.  Normal calls clobber lots of registers. > > The options are: > > 1. Use a pseudo-instruction that X86FloatingPoint understands and turns into a call after arranging for the argument to be in ST0. >   You should

On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > X86FloatingPoint.cpp with comments is all you get. Thanks for your help, Jakob. Attached is a first-pass attempt at a patch. I don't want to post to -commits yet because I have no idea if this is fully correct, but it seems to work in simple test cases. Am I on the right track? Could this patch ever

LLVM build without big problems in obj dir == src dir case (for example, last night tester build) But I have problem with building CVS version LLVM in obj dir != src dir case. ======= Finished building ModuleMaker debug executable (without symbols) ======= gmake[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/obj/examples/ModuleMaker' gmake[1]: Leaving directory

On Jan 24, 2012, at 2:30 PM, Joe Groff wrote: > On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: >> X86FloatingPoint.cpp with comments is all you get. > > Thanks for your help, Jakob. Attached is a first-pass attempt at a > patch. I don't want to post to -commits yet because I have no idea if > this is fully correct, but it seems

I resend email with updated (after mass header move) log examples. > LLVM build without big problems in obj dir == src dir case (for example, > last night tester build) > But I have problem with building CVS version LLVM in obj dir != src dir > case. > gmake[1]: Entering directory `/usr/home/wanderer/pkg/build/llvm/obj/projects' gmake[2]: Entering directory

Right. But there are 8 registers on the floating point stack from ST0 to ST7 and I think llvm is only using ST0 to ST6 in some code fragments. Could this be because of the assumption that X86::FP registers run from X86::FP0 to X86:FP6 ? --Aparna On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On May 25, 2011, at 11:09 AM, aparna kotha wrote:

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Wesley J. Landaker <wjl at icecavern.net> wrote: > * Has anyone else out there targeted (or tried to target) a stack machine > before? Was it successfull? What problems did you have? Haven't done that, and I don't think there are any existing backends like this. It should be feasible, though; the backend code is pretty flexible. > * What

Hi, I have an ir at the end of this email. Run it with: llc -mcpu=i386 -march=x86-64 -mattr=-sse2 and get assertion below. Changing cpu does not help. I am using llc from the latest svn repository. Any suggestions to work around this? I need to disable sse2 instructions for x86-64. Thanks, -Peng -----error message------ llc: X86FloatingPoint.cpp:332: unsigned int getFPReg(const

I'm not sure what causes this. Everything builds fine in Release mode but when I try to do a Debug build I get an error in Transforms (which causes all dependant projects to fail as well). I'm not exactly sure what causes the error, I'll try to investigate tomorrow (unless someone can figure out what it is by then). Below is the output from VS: ------ Build started: Project:

It compiles successfully with VC++ 7.1. You are apparently using VC++ 8.0, otherwise known as the Whidbey beta. The cause is no doubt due to bugs in Whidbey and this isn't the first one encountered. I'm sorry, but I cannot support beta Microsoft products (if only because I refuse to have them anywhere near my computer). All I can suggest is that you do a 'clean solution'

On Thu, 2004-09-02 at 00:04, Vladimir Merzliakov wrote: > I resend email with updated (after mass header move) log examples. > > > LLVM build without big problems in obj dir == src dir case (for example, > > last night tester build) > > But I have problem with building CVS version LLVM in obj dir != src dir > > case. I *only* build with obj dir != src dir and

Hi Simon, The x86 backend does generate scalar SSE2 instructions. For your example, it should emit something like: .text .align 4 .globl _sum_d _sum_d: subl $12, %esp movl 20(%esp), %eax movl 16(%esp), %ecx cmpl $0, %eax jne LBB_sum_d_2 # cond_true.preheader LBB_sum_d_1: # entry.bb9_crit_edge pxor %xmm0,

On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 4:32 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > Yes, your definition of the new instruction looks sane. > > However, you shouldn't expand the instruction right away in EmitInstrWithCustomInserter(), and leaving the pseudo and call instructions side by side is not going to work. > > Just leave the pseudo-instruction alone until it hits

Hi, I'm building a little JIT that creates functions to do array manipulations, eg. sum all the elements of a double* array. I'm writing this in python, generating llvm assembly intructions and piping that through a call to ParseAssemblyString, ExecutionEngine, etc. It's working OK on integer values, but i'm getting nasty floating point exceptions when i try this on double*