similar to: [LLVMdev] dragonegg vs -ffast-math?

Hi Jack, > I am finding that llvm 2.8 rc3 with dragonegg svn built against current > gcc-4_5-branch doesn't appear to allow gfortran to use -ffast-math. Attempting > to compile code using the dragonegg plugin under gcc 4.5.2 with that option produces the error... > > f951: Unknown command line argument '--enable-finite-only-fp-math'. Try: 'f951 -help' >

On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 02:26:35PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > > > I am finding that llvm 2.8 rc3 with dragonegg svn built against current > > gcc-4_5-branch doesn't appear to allow gfortran to use -ffast-math. Attempting > > to compile code using the dragonegg plugin under gcc 4.5.2 with that option produces the error... > > > > f951:

With the case-insensitive file system patch from http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=9656#c15 applied to dragonegg 2.9, the following Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks are seen on x86_64-apple-darwin10 under gcc 4.5.3svn using the dragonegg plugin... ================================================================================ Date & Time : 8 Apr 2011 19:52:56 Test Name :

I actually need this feature quite badly in my untyped language compiler: since I support first-class functions, I've made the types of all functions a standard vararg (so I can box them). The implementation crashes when I try to read out the value of gc.result. Hints as to what might be wrong? Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> ---

Hi, I want to clone a given function, and add an argument to it. I then want to add a call to that new function. I have a callInstruction CI, which I want to transform to call this new function, and to take a new argument. The code I added was as follows CI->getCalledFunction()->dump(); Function* DirectF = CloneFunction(CI->getCalledFunction());

On Oct 30, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: >> ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm >> svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that >> I get a series of warning messages... >> >> f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/

On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > Hi Jack, > >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current llvm/dragonegg svn >> on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > thanks for the numbers. How does this compare to LLVM 3.0 - were there any > regressions? The results from just before

On Tue, 3 Apr 2012 08:57:51 -0400 Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo.med.uc.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 09:26:38AM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote: > > Hi Jack, > > > >> Attached are the Polyhedron 2005 benchmark results for current > >> llvm/dragonegg svn on x86_64-apple-darwin11 built against Xcode > >> 4.3.2 and FSF gcc 4.6.3. > > >

On Oct 30, 2008, at 5:23 PM, Jack Howarth wrote: > ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm > svn. I find everytime I compile something with llvm-gfortran that > I get a series of warning messages... > > f951: warning: command line option "-Wformat" is valid for C/C++/ > ObjC/ObjC++ but not for Fortran > f951: warning: command line option

----- Original Message ----- > From: "James Molloy via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Vaivaswatha Nagaraj" <vn at compilertree.com> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Thursday, December 3, 2015 4:41:46 AM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Function attributes for LibFunc and its impact on GlobalsAA > >

Anyone know what to do about this: make[4]: Leaving directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/173.applu' make[4]: Entering directory `/proj/llvm/llvm-test-1/External/SPEC/CFP2000/178.galgel' /usr/bin/f95 -w -S -O2 /opt/spec/CPU2000v1.3.1/benchspec//CFP2000/178.galgel/src/modules.f90 -o modules.c -fixed -kind=byte -dcfuns -dusty f95: unrecognized option '-kind=byte'

I built my package under the R version 2.14.1 on windows without any problems by first checking for issues using R CMD check (no warnings) and then R CMD build to build the tar.gz. I can install this on version 2.14.1 using install.packages(...). I next tested to see if I could also install on version 2.15.0 (also on my computer) using install.packages() with the version 2.14.1 tar.gz this

Chris and Bill, I have tested the proposed patch from... http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-August/016490.html under i686-apple-darwin9 and it solves the problems building gfortran from llvm svn. The resulting compiler works fine so can we get that patch in before 2.4 is release? Jack ps We do have one oddity left in llvm-gfortran from current llvm svn. I find

Hello, I'm having troubles with writing a pass. In my pass I've have created a function that has two parameters - both of type i8*. Initially I wrote this function in C, that I translated it into IR, and then by using llc -march=cpp I got it's implementation in cpp code that actually inserts IR instructions. Then, I inserted this cpp code in my pass. And in some places of a program

The NIST F77 test suite doesn't seem to be compatible with gfortran at all, so I had to work from my own sample codes, and generate test cases from them. Here's what works now, and I have a separate test case for each of these: statement functions intrinsic functions (print, cos, etc) loops, goto statments scalarized array operations function calls with *no arguments* simple common

The first buildbot failure I can readily find was Monday, 26oct2009 around 7PM PDT. The assertion is Assertion failed: ((i >= FTy->getNumParams() || FTy->getParamType(i) == Params[i]->getType()) && "Calling a function with a bad signature!"), function init, file /Volumes/Sandbox/Buildbot/llvm/

On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 06:53:05AM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 09:25:55AM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote: > > Duncan, > > I was wondering if you plan on supporting the build of dragonegg under gcc 4.8.1svn > > for the llvm 3.3 release? Is the deprecation and poisoning of IDENT_ASM_OP too problematic > > to work around without some

Hi Team, I am migrating one of the Pass that was written for llvm2.2 or older to llvm3.1. The code snippet looks like the following: Constant *func; void add( Module *M) { func = M->getOrInsertFunction("func", Type::getVoidTy(M->getContext()), NULL); } virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { add (&M); for(Module::iterator F = M.begin(), E = M.end(); F !=

Duncan, With the commit from http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20121203/158488.html, the Polyhedron 2005 benchmarks complete again on x86_64-apple-darwin12. The result are similar to what were seen with FSF gcc 4.6.2svn and llvm/dragonegg 3.0 (which was the last release that passed pb05) http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2011-October/044091.html. Jack

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Michael McCracken wrote: > Here's what works now, and I have a separate test case for each of these: > > statement functions > intrinsic functions (print, cos, etc) > loops, goto statments > scalarized array operations > function calls with *no arguments* > simple common blocks Great! > Function calls with more than one argument don't work.