similar to: [LLVMdev] Building 176.gcc

On 01/18/2011 06:38 PM, Bin Zeng wrote: > Hi folks, > > I have been stumped on a compilation problem when I tried to build > 176.gcc of SPEC CPU2000 with clang v 2.8 (trunk 427) on Linux and intel. > First, I tried to compile with 'clang -std=c89 *.c -o gcc.clang' since > the default C standard of Clang is c99 while that of gcc is c89. It > reported this error: >

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > syntactic loops). Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. I took this very simple C function: int Array[1000]; void test(int

On May 4, 2004, at 10:36 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: >> I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C >> compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C >> code, >> and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without >> syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is

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

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

> LLVM-GCC 4.0 fails on Cygwin, possibly due to lack of symbolic links. I am trying with llvm-gcc-4.2 from svn. Aaron

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"

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gerolf Hoflehner" <ghoflehner at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVM Dev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jiangning Liu" <liujiangning1 at gmail.com>, "George Burgess IV" > <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com> > Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014

From: maximilian attems <max at stro.at> On review of klibc dash changes: "Hmm, this breaks the non-glibc case. You're now returning a pointer to a string on the stack which is illegal." Herbert Xu Use upstream dash way. Signed-off-by: maximilian attems <max at stro.at> Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert at gondor.apana.org.au> --- usr/dash/cd.c | 7 ++++--- 1 files

https://bugzilla.mindrot.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1235 donkishoot at wanadoo.fr changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |donkishoot at wanadoo.fr --- Comment #5 from donkishoot at wanadoo.fr 2009-06-24 23:41:20 --- I have a bug that i think is

Hi Anton & Duncan, When I try to compile on Darwin now, I get this: $ /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/llvm-gcc-4.0.obj/gcc/xgcc <options> -o eh_alloc.o Assertion failed: (false && "Couldn't find the register class"), function getPhysicalRegisterRegClass, file /Volumes/Gir/devel/llvm/ llvm.src/lib/CodeGen/SelectionDAG/ScheduleDAG.cpp, line 269.

Hi all, I find that SPEC cpu2k benchmark will always fail (9 of 10 times) for ia32 smp hvm guest with 4 vcpus. I used 4 users parameter to run cpu2k and assign 1G memory for the guest, but it will always fail when running 164.zip case and report warnings as the attachments. However, cpu2k could be run successfully in native linux and xenU guest with the same configuration. Anyone has ideas about

Hi, I'm very interested in the quality of the codes generated by LLVM. Has anyone done performance comparision among llvm, gcc, and native compilers on x86 or sparc for SPEC CPU2000 or other large benchmarks? thanks. Qiong

Hi, I want to know what benchmarks can LLVM compile and run successfully. Such as SPEC CPU2000, SPEC CPU2006 or other benchmarks. Thanks Shengmei -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20091221/ed70efce/attachment.html>

Hello LLVM-people, I've been trying (on and off) to compile the _full_ SPEC CPU2000 benchmark suite to LLVM bytecode. The biggest problem I'm facing is the Fortran benchmarks, for which some partial support is already available it seems (using f2c). Unfortunately the f2c compiler only allows the translation of Fortran-77 programs to C code (which is then compiled using llvm-gcc).

Hi Ahmed, Yes. I'd share with Kristof and Renato's concerns, and the impact/dependence upon link-time tool should be clarified before disabling this pass. On the other hand, actually the test on our hardware shows disabling this pass without LTO considered, some spec benchmarks would have big regressions, (positive is bad) spec.cpu2000.ref.253_perlbmk 3.27% spec.cpu2000.ref.254_gap

Hello, I'm trying to compile to SPEC CPU2000 suite to LLVM bytecode, using the llvm-test harness. I have tried this using: - both the 1.7 and 1.8 releases, without succes (and running into the same problems in both releases) - both the gcc3 and gcc4 frontends I'm working on Linux/x86. LLVM is configured using: ./configure --prefix=/path/to/bin/dir and compiled using gmake; gmake

Hi Scott, On 18 Mar 2007, at 04:22, Scott Fortmann-Roe wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that LLVM had signed up as a mentoring organization for > Google's summer of code. LLVM looks like an exciting project that > overlaps some of my interests. > > I would be interested in developing an additional front end for a > language it does not currently support (I'm open to

Hi, I noticed that LLVM had signed up as a mentoring organization for Google's summer of code. LLVM looks like an exciting project that overlaps some of my interests. I would be interested in developing an additional front end for a language it does not currently support (I'm open to what language). I do not know much about what this entails in regards to what LLVM requires from its

On 31 Aug 2006, at 23:46, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Kenneth Hoste wrote: >> Bummer. I think I'll contact the NAG support for more info on >> this. Can you >> show me the content of your Makefile.nagfortran? > > It is identical to yours. > >> Also, it is possible to tell make only to compile benchmark X? How >> can I >>