similar to: [LLVMdev] Unreachable executed with fast Regalloc and Sparc backend

On Jan 7, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Venkatraman Govindaraju wrote: > When I run LLC with option "-O0 -march=sparc" on following testcase, > fast register allocator crashes with "UNREACHABLE executed" error. LLC > generates code successfully with other standard register allocators > available. I haven't investigated the Sparc backend specifically but... My guess is

Instead of just upcasing them, can we add prefix ARCH_? --Venkatraman On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 2:36 AM, Eric Christopher<echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Aug 25, 2009, at 12:32 AM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I think I should rename the constants to be a little less likely to >> collide. I think just upcasing them might be good enough? > >

On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > That's really cool! Should we add note to Release Notes? Definitely. I will add a note mentioning about this in ReleaseNotes.rst. > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Venkatraman Govindaraju > <venkatra at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: >> Thanks to Jakob's work on Sparcv9 ABI in

In r198030 the last in tree backend was converted to use MCInst for printing assembly. I removed support for the old printer in r198959. Out of tree targets have to lower MachineInstr to MCInst to use the new printer. Cheers, Rafael

Thanks to Jakob's work on Sparcv9 ABI in Clang and recent changes to Sparc code generator, I am happy to announce that Clang can self host itself on Linux/Sparc64 and on FreeBSD/Sparc64. However, it still fails on a few unit tests and nightly tests, primarily due to misaligned memory accesses in the code (See bugs 18482, 18500, 18502, 18536, 18693). Unlike other architectures, misaligned

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 1:59 AM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > Fantastic.  A great place to start would be to investigate / screen various sparc related bugs in bugzilla to see if they are still relevant and present: > http://llvm.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=sparc > > This bug looks pretty fatal if it is actually real: >

I would like to take ownership of Target/Sparc, if no one objects. Thanks, Venkatraman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121121/53828f4b/attachment.html>

I would prefer not to; they already live in a protected namespace, so there is no need to mangle them except to protect them from exuberant preprocessor defines, and this would be slightly out of style with other public uses of enumerations in LLVM. - Daniel On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 7:49 AM, Venkatraman Govindaraju<venkatra at cs.wisc.edu> wrote: > Instead of just upcasing them, can we

On 1/20/11 12:27 PM, Venkatraman Govindaraju wrote: Just out of curiosity, have either of you considered writing an LLVM transform that simply replaces these call instructions with inline assembly code that does what you want? If that works, it seems much simpler than modifying/enhancing the code generator. -- John T. > I have similar requirements for my project. This is what I do. >

Hello, What is your LLVM version? Also, can you attach the assembly generated? Thanks, Venkatraman On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <bruno.cardoso at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Christine Cheng <clcheng at stanford.edu> wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> Thanks for the input. However, it seems that the code

Can someone explain how the condition code is passed from the MBlazeTargetLowering::LowerSELECT_CC to MBlazeTargetLowering::EmitCustomSelect custom inserter? In LowerSELECT_CC the condition code is never accessed (Op.GetOperand(4)) and I don't see how it ends up getting correctly passed to the MBlazeTargetLowering::EmitCustomSelect. > SDValue

I have similar requirements for my project. This is what I do. 1. Add a new intrinsic function to LLVM that corresponds to "functions with particular type of function names". The steps to create intrinsic function is documented in http://llvm.org/docs/ExtendingLLVM.html#intrinsic. 2. Create a lowering pass that lowers "functions with particular type" ( eg. p0, p1) to

Hello all, I am trying to modify the Sparc backend to do something for my team's project, to do the following. Whenever the backend encounters a call to one particular type of function names (functions like p0(), p1()..etc), I want the backend to generate a "sethi %g0, <number>", and NOT a "call p0, call p1..." instruction. However, the backend should work as usual

For my case, I can't replace these call instructions with inline assembly code because I need to encode the registers into the "number". For instance, if the call instruction is %result = call i32 @foo(i32 %a) and the result is assigned to register %l0 and the variable "a" to register %l1, then I encode all foo, %l0 and %l1 and generate a sethi instruction. thanks,

Folks, I'm at the point in developing llvmc (Compiler Driver) where I need to get the details on the specific optimization arguments that the -O family of options should (by default) issue to "opt". I'm soliciting your feedback on this so I can start testing optimization. Hopefully you can provide it by early this coming week. For clarity, the -O options are currently defined

Hi all, I attempted to add an EL5.1 client to our puppet server (EL5), and after signing the client cert, got the error "Certificates were not trusted: hostname not match with the server certificate" I found the mailing list discussion and the relevant page: http://www.reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/wiki/RubySSL-2007-006 As far as I can tell, my puppermaster''s cert CN matches

Hi Christine, > I am using LLVM 2.8 and llvm-gcc 4.2. Could you please try svn top-of-tree? Clang is also a better choice here. > The assembly files are attached. In the assembly file, the erroneous result > is associated with 'subcc', while the correct ones are associated with 'or'. -- Bruno Cardoso Lopes http://www.brunocardoso.cc

I can't reproduce this problem with the recent svn trunk. LLVM 2.9 has lots of fixes for Sparc back-end. So, please at least try with LLVM-2.9. Thanks, On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Bruno Cardoso Lopes <bruno.cardoso at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Christine, > >> I am using LLVM 2.8 and llvm-gcc 4.2. > > Could you please try svn top-of-tree? Clang is also a better

Reid, I have one substantial change to suggest to this. I think the distinction between module-level and cross-module optimization is artificial and unnecessary in LLVM because transparent link-time optimization makes intra-module and cross-module optimizations indistiguishable. It *is* important to distinguish between fast and slow optimizations. Because of this, I would suggest a

On Oct 8, 2011, at 12:05 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: > PS: With -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-enable-gcc-optzns the LLVM optimizers are run at > the following levels: > > Command line option LLVM optimizers run at > ------------------- ---------------------- > -O1 tiny amount of optimization > -O2 or -O3 -O1 > -O4 or -O5