similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] mult-alt tests

Actually the 2.8 fork is coming up tomorrow and I'm thinking maybe we should wait until after that. Is this something you really want to get in 2.8? On Sep 1, 2010, at 6:29 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against > today's trunk. > However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in

Dale, Thanks. It's not changed, but I've enclosed a fresh patch against today's trunk. However, I'm seeing 28 unexpected failing tests in llvm/test on x86 Linux 64 today. But it's the same on an unmodified tree, so I guess I'm still okay. It passed at one point for me with these changes. -John On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 5:04 PM, Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple.com>

Dale, Sorry, I see you did say I should run the gcc tests. I apologize for forgetting this. I'll work on getting them to run here. Chris et. all, I have a fix for the assertion failure in the enclosed llvmmultalt8.patch file. I didn't realize the input constraints could have different numbers of alternatives from the outputs, which now makes sense. The pr20314-2.c file now compiles

On Sep 1, 2010, at 11:03 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the > test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 > 64 bit box. > > When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the > LLVM side? In principle, yes, I'd like to rereview if it's changed. > My

I'm trying to write some tests for inline asm constraints, single and multiple alternative. Does anyone know of some example/test code using all or some subset of the constraint letters for one or more platforms that I could look at? Does anyone know how to set up an asm statement using the "o" constraint? Thanks. -John -- John Thompson John.Thompson.JTSoftware at gmail.com

I'm close to confirming that I get the equivalent results from the test-suite with my changes, compared to a fresh tree, on a Linux x86 64 bit box. When that is the case, may I check in my current changes for the LLVM side? My preference is to develop the mult-alt support incrementally, rather than one big check-in, as I get nervous sitting on a lot of changes for a long time. I feel this

On Sep 20, 2010, at 9:40 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Thanks, Stuart. Sorry, I had some left-over editing cruft in my email. From Googling runtest, I had found dejagnu, which I'd heard some folks were using over there, so I used the local package manager to install it. But from what you said I went ahead and got the dejagnu sources and built it, but had problems in running make

Thanks, Stuart. Sorry, I had some left-over editing cruft in my email. >From Googling runtest, I had found dejagnu, which I'd heard some folks were using over there, so I used the local package manager to install it. But from what you said I went ahead and got the dejagnu sources and built it, but had problems in running make install, which is trying to put it /usr/local/bin rather than

On Aug 30, 2010, at 3:11 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > Dale, > > I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at > the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically > constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being > constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect > the opposite. > > The

Daniel, Sorry, I'm implementing the back-end support for multiple-alternative constraints in stages. I wouldn't expect any serious inline asm multiple alternative constraints tests to work yet, as a number of the constraint characters aren't implemented yet. I'll try to fix it so that it doesn't assert when unsupported constraints are used. Clang may have passed parsing

Hi John, Have you looked at the GCC test suite? It certainly has some examples -- I know for sure because one of them is now failing with Clang after your recent patch. :) I have a hacked up version in the 'clang-tests' module in SVN which has been made a bit easier to run with clang. - Daniel On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 12:07 PM, John Thompson <john.thompson.jtsoftware at

I've run the tests from clang-tests/trunk/gcc-4_2-testsuite on a Ubuntu x86-64 Linux box with the following results: === gcc Summary === # of expected passes 29946 # of unexpected failures 9938 # of unexpected successes 29 # of expected failures 28 # of unresolved testcases 1451 # of untested testcases 273 # of unsupported tests 811 pid is 4456

Dale, I took a closer look at the first llc failure, initp1. Looking at the initp1.llc file in gdb, it appears that the statically constructed objects without the init_priority attribute are being constructed before those with it, though the test seems to expect the opposite. The initp1.llc.s file seems to have the .ctors table in the right order, but the _init code is reading the table in

Dale, I've looked a bit at ChooseConstraintTuple in llvm-gcc, as well as the code generator in Clang and the inline asm handling in LLVM (ala visitInlineAsm). While I see how Clang could do it to some extent by looking at the expression types of the operands, it seems that LLVM would be in a better position for choosing multiple alternative constraints as it would know what all the operands

Hi John, On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:32 AM, John Thompson <john.thompson.jtsoftware at gmail.com> wrote: > I've run the tests from clang-tests/trunk/gcc-4_2-testsuite on a Ubuntu > x86-64 Linux box with the following results: > >         === gcc Summary === > > # of expected passes        29946 > # of unexpected failures    9938 > # of unexpected successes    29

On Sep 21, 2010, at 2:45 PMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > fatal error: error in backend: Ran out of registers during register allocation! > Please check your inline asm statement for invalid constraints: > INLINEASM <es:>, 0, 10, %reg16396<def>, 10, %reg16397<def>, 10, %reg16398<def>, 10, %reg16399<def>, 10, %reg16400<def>, 10, %reg16401<def>,10,

Hi, I'm doing some preliminary work to get Clang to compile for PS3 targets. As an intermediate step in that direction, could someone do me the favor of reviewing and submitting the enclosed patch, or giving me feedback on it? Basically, I need to be able to differentiate the triple for a PS3 target. These are the triples currently used in the gcc-based compiler from the PS3 devkit:

Martin, I have an objection in principle to anything that has the side-effect of clobbering something in the global environment, even something as innocuous looking as "old.par". I certainly object to putting something like that into a public library, however clever and useful the code might be. It just is not safe. As a quick way round this I suggest the following (R only) solution:

Hello, I would like to use the aregImpute and fit.mult.impute to impute missing values for my dataset and then conduct logistic regression analyses on the data, taking into account that we imputed values. I have no problems imputing the values using aregImpute, but I am getting an error at the fit.mult.impute stage. Here is some sample code (I actually have more observations and variables to

The LLVM asm parser doesn't support multiple alternative constraints; you need to have Clang pick one tuple in the front end. See ChooseConstraintTuple in llvm-gcc for prior art. On Jul 29, 2010, at 11:36 AMPDT, John Thompson wrote: > I'm trying to fix the handling of multiple alternate constraints in > Clang (see