similar to: [LLVMdev] Hello pass?

Owen, I have an issue about the Hello on windows. Please seek "RFC: change build order (or location) of LLVMHello plugin" in this list, thank you :) My proposal: move it onto a new directory plugins/ ps. I would like to know why the Hello plugin is on lib/Transforms. Is it a historical reason? ...Takumi 2010/10/7 Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com>: > Hey, > > Does

No, it has the wrong value. I tried it with cmake 2.8.9 and 2.8.12.2. Both of them set the variable to “.so”. On Feb 12, 2014, at 5:29 PM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Juergen, > > Thanks to let me know. I guess r200762 (and r200763) might affect. > > Although I won't check this on darwin box, I suspect the line in > HandleLLVMOptions.cmake;

Hi Takumi, I am not sure if it this change, but recently we started to build LLVMHello.so and BugpointPasses.so on OS X. A few bugpoint tests are failing, because they are looking for a dylib that doesn’t exist. Could you please take a look? Thanks -Juergen On Feb 10, 2014, at 2:34 AM, NAKAMURA Takumi <geek4civic at gmail.com> wrote: > Steve, excuse me to respond you partially. >

Hello, everybody! On win32(s), lib/Transforms/Hello cannot be built cleanly. It will be built after 1st build. Linking the plugin LLVMHello.dll requires other libraries, especially LLVM.dll. May I move Hello to other location? Or, may I tweak llvm/Makefile? ...Takumi

Alright, go ahead with it. —Owen > On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:58 AM, Daniil Troshkov <troshkovdanil at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > I have not found test case. (It is because we have no target using "ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack"). > But I tested it for target currently not included in llvm trunk. > > This fix correct and trivial, so I'm offering

Surprisingly enough, libatomic_ops doesn't define just a hardware memory fence call as far as I can tell. --Owen On May 16, 2009, at 3:00 PM, Zoltan Varga wrote: > Hi, > > You might want to use this: > > http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/ > > Zoltan > > On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at

What would you do with a just-hardware memory fence? If the compiler's free to move operations over the hardware fence, that seems to defeat the purpose. C++0X provides a compiler-only fence, and a hardware+compiler fence, but no hardware-only fence, I believe for this reason. See <http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2009/n2857.pdf>, section 29.8. On Sat, May 16, 2009 at

On Jun 18, 2014, at 3:05 PM, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 8:29 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Numerical analysis is hard. Every numerics expert I have ever worked with considers trying to re-invent floating point a cardinal sin of numerical analysis. Just don’t do it. You will miss important considerations, and you will

> On May 26, 2015, at 1:37 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> On 2015-May-26, at 09:46, Alex L <arphaman at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> The CodeGen library is a big bag of interdependent bits. This caused >> a circular dependency in the MIR serialization commit (r237954), which got >>

Some of you may have noticed that I addedd include/llvm/System/ Atomics.h to the repository briefly, which will be used for adding support for threading in LLVM. I have tried to provided appropriate implementations of the atomic ops (currently memory fence and CAS) for platforms we care about, but my knowledge of these, and my ability to test them, is limited. So, please, if you run on

Thanks. I think I am using Apple GCC 4.2. i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5566) Should I use something else for LLVM? - xi On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 1:20 AM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > > On May 23, 2009, at 9:41 PM, Xi Wang wrote: > > There is no __sync_synchronize or __sync_val_compare_and_swap on Mac > OS X.  One might use

Hi owen, Can you please elaborate as to what should I do? Find all the instruction which have r2 in it and replace all of them with r1 and then remove the load instruction? Thanks Abhinav ----- Original Message ----- From: "Owen Anderson" <resistor at mac.com> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 11:22:32 PM

I detected this bug using test case from platform which is not currently supported on llvm targets. (Our team is porting llvm on new target). Creating the test case will take some extra time. I'll try to do it ASAP. Have you any ideas about the test case? (targets using ExpandInsertToVectorThroughStack, etc...) On Wed, Nov 12, 2014 at 8:29 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote:

Hello, Yuan > I'm a newbie about llvm. Now, our project need the dynamic link library(dll) > about all of llvm library, such as libLLVMCore.dll, libLLVMSupport.dll, and > so on. How should I do? You may do, "/path/to/configure --enable-shared=yes", to build LLVM-2.8svn.dll. On your project, you have to specify to linker, "-L/path/to/dll -lLLVM-2.8svn" (maybe with

Many oveloaded intrinsics may be replaced with instructions - fabs or fma or sqrt. Chandler will probably explain the criteria. What the diff between fma and fadd? Or fptrunc and fabs? A new instruction like %a = loadm <4 x i32>* %addr, <4 x i32> %passthru, i32 4, <4 x i1>%mask is possible, but may be not very useful for most of targets. So we start from intrinsics. -

Hello, everyone! 请键入文字或网站地址，或者上传文档 <http://translate.google.cn/?tr=f&hl=zh-CN>。 取消 <http://translate.google.cn/?tr=t&hl=zh-CN> I'm a newbie about llvm. Now, our project need the dynamic link library(dll) about all of llvm library, such as libLLVMCore.dll, libLLVMSupport.dll, and so on. How should I do? Thanks, yuanzheng. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML

Hi, You might want to use this: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/linux/atomic_ops/ Zoltan On Sat, May 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote: > Some of you may have noticed that I addedd include/llvm/System/Atomics.h to > the repository briefly, which will be used for adding support for threading > in LLVM. > > I have

On 12/14/2013 05:18 PM, Dan Gohman wrote: > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com > <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: > > > On Dec 12, 2013, at 4:57 PM, Philip Reames > <listmail at philipreames.com <mailto:listmail at philipreames.com>> wrote: > >> undef + any == NaN (since undef can be NaN) or undef +

Ok, I had forgotten about sNaNs. Doesn't the same caveat apply to 0-sNaN then though or does that not signal? Does that mean we need a separate way to handle negate in the IR? Funnily enough, historically I believe we were using the multiplication by -1.0 because it was a more reliable negation that 0-x (from 3.0 until 3.3 at least). Is there a good reason why multiplication by NaN should kill

we just follow a common recommendation to start with intrinsics: http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html - Elena From: Owen Anderson [mailto:resistor at mac.com] Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 23:57 To: Demikhovsky, Elena Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu; dag at cray.com Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Adding masked vector load and store intrinsics What is the motivation for using intrinsics