similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM make check-lit results *not reproducible* in certain cases WAS: [llvm-commits]: Initial cut of ARM MC ELF emitter (PATCH)

So, if I understand you correctly the summary is that doing * Build llvm and install it in /foo/bar * Build llvm-gcc and install it in /foo/bar * export PATH=/foo/bar/bin:$PATH * Build llvm again in a unrelated build directory and then running "make check-lit" in the second directory causes /foo/bar/bin/llc and similar tools to be used instead of the recently build tools? If that is

Hello, I am encountering a strange assertion failure using the LLVM libraries cross-compiled for Android using the Android NDK. I am using the official release of LLVM-2.9. The IR which is causing the assertion failure is the following: define void @__construct_Byte__Integer(i8* nocapture %byteLValue, i32 %integerRValue) inlinehint { entry: %0 = trunc i32 %integerRValue to i8 store i8 %0,

Hi Jim! On Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Jason, > > I've just started actively working on this. Coordinating to get things moving even faster sounds great! Can you elaborate a bit on your ultimate goals and use cases are? That might help us better determine a natural breakdown and separation of tasks. Evan and Chris may have

Hi all, Can anybody give a tutorial about how to use llvm-lit tool? I copy and revise Makefile and lit.cfg etc from clang to my project. However, when I run make test it always seem unable to find the FileCheck tool correctly. How can I fix it? Can anybody add test feature to llvm/project/sample? Thanks in advance! best, Yabin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was

Hi everyone, Rafael has graciously given me some pointers for helping out on the ARM/MC .s emission infrastructure, and I am volunteering to do so. It looks like as of yesterday, the MC obj emitter for ARM is also incomplete (there does not seem to be a ARMMCCodeEmitter.cpp, for example) So if anyone already has started looking into this, I'd like to pool info so as to not step on toes. Any

Hi Jason, I've just started actively working on this. Coordinating to get things moving even faster sounds great! Can you elaborate a bit on your ultimate goals and use cases are? That might help us better determine a natural breakdown and separation of tasks. Evan and Chris may have suggestions there, too, as I know they're both very interested in getting this stuff fleshed out and

On 10 January 2011 22:59, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > Hi everyone, happy new year. > > This note is to announce that support for PC relative reloc tags for > movw/movt is nearing completion (hopefully <48hrs!). This work is is > from Jan Voung, David Meyer and myself. Hi Jason, Happy new year! That seems a long patch... with many changes... can't

On 10 January 2011 23:54, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > If I am understanding you correctly, then the answer is no, because .s > output doesn't care about relocations per se... Hi Jason, That's not entirely true. ;) If you only use the GNU toolchain, that is correct. However, CodeSourcery's GCC changed a bit on how it works for ARM because the ARM toolchain

I have not proceeded past loading your files as it is complaining about Clearsigned file invalid, etc...: :~$ sudo wget -O - http://apt.van-belle.nl/louis-van-belle.gpg-key.asc | sudo apt-key add - --2018-11-30 00:03:40-- http://apt.van-belle.nl/louis-van-belle.gpg-key.asc Resolving apt.van-belle.nl (apt.van-belle.nl)... 149.210.206.148, 2a01:7c8:aab6:5ab:5054:ff:feff:ae66 Connecting to

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> Date: Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:59 PM Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] Fwd: Proof of concept patch for unifying the .s/ELF emission of .ARM.attributes To: Rafael Espíndola <rafael.espindola at gmail.com> On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:51 PM, Jason Kim <jasonwkim at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21,

Renato, The result of running 'llvm-lit $LLVM/TEST/MC" is: Expected Passes : 330 Expected Failures : 20 Actually it passed "make check", no unexpected result. On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at arm.com> wrote: > On 13 May 2011 06:42, Koan-Sin Tan <koansin.tan at gmail.com> wrote: >> With that attached patch, we can compile

Sorry, this is the part in ARMLoadStoreOptimizer.cpp that creates a LDRD instruction. Ops.pop_back(); Ops.pop_back(); // Form the pair instruction. if (isLd) { MachineInstrBuilder MIB = BuildMI(*MBB, InsertPos, dl, TII->get(NewOpc)) .addReg(EvenReg, RegState::Define)

On 13 May 2011 12:16, Koan-Sin Tan <koansin.tan at gmail.com> wrote: >  The result of running 'llvm-lit $LLVM/TEST/MC" is: > Expected Passes : 330 > Expected Failures : 20 >  Actually it passed "make check", no unexpected result. Try make check-all, it runs more tests... Still, I think someone more in line with MC/ELF should have a look at the patch. Rafael?

On 11-05-13 08:15 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 13 May 2011 12:16, Koan-Sin Tan<koansin.tan at gmail.com> wrote: >> The result of running 'llvm-lit $LLVM/TEST/MC" is: >> Expected Passes : 330 >> Expected Failures : 20 >> Actually it passed "make check", no unexpected result. > > Try make check-all, it runs more tests... > > Still,

*1. I have searched the access/setting of LLVMCC_EMITIR_FLAG in the build directory, recursively, and all the output is what I pasted in last email (just the same to the that in source directory). Maybe the configure failed to do it. My command list for building the test suit is as followings:* *(1) cd ~/SRC_DIR/llvm/projects* *(2) svn co http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/test-suite/trunk

The problem is in your code, not the compiler. You're casting an unaligned char* to an int*, even though an int* pointer must be 4-byte aligned in every ARM ABI that I've ever seen. On Jan 23, 2012, at 6:14 AM, Alexandre Colucci wrote: > Hi, > > I think I discovered a major armv7 optimization bug in Clang. I create a simple test case which exhibits the issue. > When you

I think this issue is that we were not using the INTERCEPTOR macros to define these functions. The following patch seems to work for me to get the build linking again, however, I cannot test -- when I run check-asan, I get: 2> lit.py: lit.common.cfg:59: fatal: Invalid llvm_tools_dir config attribute: 'E:/llvm/2013/$(Configuration)/bin' ~Aaron On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 1:20 PM, Aaron

Hi, I think I discovered a major armv7 optimization bug in Clang. I create a simple test case which exhibits the issue. When you compile the attached file for armv7 with optimizations turned on (O2, O3 or Os), the binary generated led to a crash. The issue can't be reproduced when using GCC 4.2. It can't be reproduced with Clang when the optimization is turned off (O0). This issue can be

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Qingan Li <ww345ww at gmail.com> Date: 2011/1/19 Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] About test suits Cont1 To: Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> *I am sorry for making you confused when I presented my problem.* *1. My steps for the test suit building:* (1) cd /home/qali/Src; * // This is my source directory for all application

On Sep 7, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Akira Hatanaka wrote: > I have two questions regarding MachineMemOperands and dependence information. > > Q1) I noticed that MachineMemOperands are lost when two LDRs are combined and a LDRD is generated in ARMPreAllocLoadStoreOpt:::RescheduleOps. > > (before optimization) > %reg1033<def> = LDR %reg1030, %reg0, 4100, pred:14, pred:%reg0;