similar to: [LLVMdev] "multiple definition of .. " in clang 2.8

Hi, I tried to run the SPEC benchmark suite SPECCPU 2006 with llvm and clang 2.8. When building the perlbench sources I get these errors (see below) for all the source files. I used a config file ( http://old.nabble.com/file/p30085184/llvm.cfg llvm.cfg ) where I specify clang as the compiler. I verified the same sources with llvm-gcc and it works fine. Also, I verified the sjeng benchmark from

It seems that the problem occurs from the optimization level. In the 2.7 version I was using -O0 and in 2.8 I tested the same benchmarks with -O3. clang -O0 works fine, while clang -O3 makes redefinitions (probably it is related to inlining) of the functions from stdlib.h, math.h and some other libraries. To give one example, function atoi is defined in the generated *.ll file: define i32

On 2/7/2017 20:02, Kostya Serebryany wrote: > ... > > My understanding is that BNDCU is the cheapest possible instruction, > just like XOR or ADD, > so the overhead should be relatively small. > Still my guesstimate would be >= 5% since stores are very numerous. > And such overhead will be on top of whatever overhead SafeStack has. > Do you have any measurements to

On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll have to force whatever default GCC has for it's C++ standard. Though, GCC 4.8 is getting very close to Clang's behaviour, so

On 08/16/2013 01:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com > <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote: > > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > > > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not > Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll > have to force

Hi I am using SanitizerCoverage feature supported by clang to get the basicblock coverage. my tested binaries are spec cpu2006. I compiled the binary with the option COPTIMIZE = -O0 -fsanitize=address -fsanitize-coverage=bb -flto -fno-strict-aliasing -std=gnu89 -gdwarf-3 After the compiling process is end. I run the 400.perlbench. with the command ASAN_OPTIONS=coverage=1 ./perlbench.

Hi If so, is it able to disable this check. All I need is just to get the BB coverage information Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com>于2018年9月5日 周三下午6:57写道： > This is a known problem in SPECCPU2006, see > https://github.com/google/sanitizers/wiki/AddressSanitizerFoundBugs > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Muhui Jiang via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at

Hi Alex Thanks for your email. But it seems not work. I removed the -fsanitize=address flag. The global buffer overflow message doesn't show. However, no *.sancov file is created after I run perlbench. Thus, I could not get the BB coverage. Do you have any ideas? Many Thanks Regards Muhui Alexander Potapenko <glider at google.com> 于2018年9月5日周三 下午7:14写道： > Hi Muhui, > > If

When compile 403.gcc, there are link errors. 1) environment 1.1) OS Linux gnode107 2.6.18-128.el5 #1 SMP Wed Jan 21 10:41:14 EST 2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux *1.2) The default GCC compiler is * gcc (GCC) 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-44) Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for

Hello, I upgraded to llvm 2.8 and when I generate *.ll files from C/C++ with clang -S -emit-llvm I obtain a *.ll file in which instructions and basicblocks have no names. I tried as well compiling with the -g option, but no names were given. In the release notes it is indicated to use "--show-annotations" to print the number of uses. Is there something similar for assigning names to

In lto+pgo some (5 out of 12 with usual suspect like perlbench and gcc among them using -flto -Wl,-mllvm,-use-cfl-aa -Wl,-mllvm,-use-cfl-aa-in-codegen) the CINT2006 benchmarks don’t compile. Has the implementation been tested with lto? If not, please stress the implementation more. Do we know reasons for gains? Where did you expect the biggest gains? Some of the losses will likely boil down to

I used the suite with clang 3.3 a few months ago. If I remember correctly, I ran into the same error seen here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036013.html Although it doesn't seem to be a problem with the frontend, adding -std=gnu89, as suggested, fixed everything for me. H. ----- Original Message ----- From: reed kotler Sent: 08/16/13 01:26 AM To: LLVM Developers

Hi Jack, On Sat, Mar 2, 2013 at 8:15 AM, Jack Carter <Jack.Carter at imgtec.com> wrote: > Jia, > > I made what I believe to be the correct changes and rebuilt clang and llc. Are the results what you expected? I so I will prepare the patches for commitment. > > Jack > > clang ../mips_R_JiaLiu.c -o mips_R_JiaLiu.ll -emit-llvm -O3 -S -target mipsel-unknown-linux -std=gnu89

On CINT2006 ARM64/ref input/lto+pgo I practically measure no performance difference for the 7 benchmarks that compile. This includes bzip2 (although different source base than in CINT2000), mcf, hmmer, sjeng, h364ref, astar, xalancbmk On Sep 15, 2014, at 11:59 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Gerolf Hoflehner"

Hello, Can anyone please guide me how can I replace a load instruction with a prefetch. I was looking at the intrinsic creation methods of the IRBuilder, but I can only find functions corresponding to memset, memcpy and memmove intrinsics, not for prefetching. Also, I target x86-64 architectures. Is it sufficient to insert a call to the intrinsic in the LLVM IR to have the corresponding prefetch

Hello, How can I compute the functions on the loop iterators used as array indices?  For example: for i = 0, N       for j = 0, M             A[2*i + j - 10] = ...  Can I obtain that this instruction A[2*i + j - 10]= .. always accesses memory using a function       f(i,j)   =   2*i + j - 10 + base_address_of_A If I run the scalar evolution pass on this code I obtain: %arrayidx =

Hi, I would like to force the minimum number of bits allocated for a variable in memory to be 16. From what I have seen, i1 is already represented on 8 bits. So, the only change would be to represent i1 and i8 on 16 bits, as all other types already fulfill this condition. TargetData can help by setting a higher alignment, thus although the type is i1 or i8, the number of allocated bits is 16.

Hello everyone, One of Google's summer interns, George Burgess IV, created an implementation of the CFL pointer-aliasing analysis algorithm, and this has now been added to LLVM trunk. Now we should determine whether it is worthwhile adding this to the default optimization pipeline. For ease of testing, I've added the command line option -use-cfl-aa which will cause the CFL analysis to be

Alexandra, I'm not sure what you mean by "replace", but I have code that does this to insert prefetches: Type *I8Ptr = Type::getInt8PtrTy((*I)->getContext(), PtrAddrSpace); Value *PrefPtrValue = ... IRBuilder<> Builder(MemI); Module *M = (*I)->getParent()->getParent(); Type *I32 = Type::getInt32Ty((*I)->getContext()); Value

On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 7:05 PM, Nick Desaulniers <ndesaulniers at google.com> wrote: > > The semantics of extern inline has changed since gnu89. This means that > folks using GCC versions >= 5.1 may see symbol redefinition errors at > link time for subdirs that override KBUILD_CFLAGS (making the C standard > used implicit) regardless of this patch. This has been cleaned up