similar to: [LLVMdev] llc -soft-float does not work

Hi All, I am working on a custom defined architecture which implements Sparc ISA but without floating point instructions. I have two questions regarding using LLVM: 1. How to enable soft-float when building llvm-gcc? 2. How to let llvm-gcc generate native code (binaries) for Sparc? Do I have to compile glibc or newlib for Sparc and link with it together? I am kinda confused so it would be great

On Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 6:47 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> wrote: > On 3/31/11 8:39 PM, Xun Li wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I am working on a custom defined architecture which implements Sparc >> ISA but without floating point instructions. >> I have two questions regarding using LLVM: >> 1. How to enable soft-float when building

On 3/31/11 8:39 PM, Xun Li wrote: > Hi All, > > I am working on a custom defined architecture which implements Sparc > ISA but without floating point instructions. > I have two questions regarding using LLVM: > 1. How to enable soft-float when building llvm-gcc? There might be an option when configuring llvm-gcc. Check the GCC docs to see if such an option exists. Maybe

Hi, Since LLVM does not contain an assembler and linker to generate native code, do people have to write their own assembler if the target is different from the host? Or did I misunderstand something? Thanks. Xun Li ArchLab Department of Computer Science University of California, Santa Barbara

I can't say this is a bug it is changed behavior from before the new attribute scheme. This issue may appear with other attributes. (there are other attributes that clang will now place on each function) If you run clang as a single pass to create a .ll and don't say -msoft-float, it puts the attribute use-soft-float=false on every function. (It used to be that in that case

My understanding is that with the new attribute system we should deprecate and eventually remove the codegen command line options. On 17 May 2013 06:04, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > I can't say this is a bug it is changed behavior from before the new > attribute scheme. > > This issue may appear with other attributes. (there are other attributes > that clang

The documentation is correct, and the observation that the IR verifier is currently not verifying this property is also correct. Due to the way that dbg.declares are handled by later stages, LLVM can only keep track of one dbg.declare per variable and that is intentional. The dbg.declare intrinsic is supposed to pin a variable to a stack slot, such as in the code that clang emits at -O0. If you

Hi, > > llvm-gcc assumes that there's already a native code C library available to > > use. 鼦ll the systems of which I know already come with a C library. 狢f you > > somehow don't have a C library for your system, you'll have to compile one. > > > > Yes every system comes with C library implementations but if the > target architecture is different

On 05/17/2013 08:08 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > My understanding is that with the new attribute system we should > deprecate and eventually remove the codegen command line options. How is that possible? > On 17 May 2013 06:04, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I can't say this is a bug it is changed behavior from before the new >> attribute scheme.

Hi all, -soft-float can not be rightly use by llc. All float function operation will call soft float, but not hard. My mips device cannot support half float type, so I hack the llvm, and add soft half float and add -soft-float option. I add the function define for __gnu_f2h_ieee() and __gnu_h2f_ieee (), and it can call the soft half float. However, all the others function about

Hi Xun, On 16/09/13 03:42, Xun Chen wrote: > Hi, Guys: > > I'm new for LLVM. Just downloaded the LLVM. > I used cmake to compiler the LLVM3.3, but found an error, because it can > not automatically compiler the target description file (*.td) to the .inc file. > But when I tried the LLVM 3.2, It is ok. > Could your give me some suggestion? your description

Hi, Guys: I'm new for LLVM. Just downloaded the LLVM. I used cmake to compiler the LLVM3.3, but found an error, because it can not automatically compiler the target description file (*.td) to the .inc file. But when I tried the LLVM 3.2, It is ok. Could your give me some suggestion? Regards' Xun -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I have been trying to figure this out for a long time and really need some help. I am compiling C programs which uses some math functions (such as pow, ceil) into SPARC ISA, using llvm-gcc. I imagine below is the right process: llvm-gcc -c -emit-llvm *.c llvm-ld -lm *.bc -o test llc -march=sparc test.bc -o test.s However when I look into test.s, I realized that those math functions are not

Hi, I'm trying to generate some SPARCv8 assembly for a sparc target that doesn't have an FPU. I'm unable to get the flow to generate calls to a soft-float library. Since I wasn't able to find a definitive answer, I was hoping someone might be able to offer some pointers or shed some light. Running "clang -c -emit-llvm -msoft-float test.c -o test.bc" doesn't generate

Hi Moritz, On 26 September 2017 at 09:09, Moritz Angermann via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I’ve run into a case where `llc -mattr=+soft-float` for > "armv7-unknown-linux-androideabi” segfaults, while > `llc -float-abi=soft` does not. Similarly if the > "target-features"="+soft-float” metadata is embedded, > llc segfaults. The float-abi

Since updating to LLVM 3.3, the system is generating attributes such as: attributes #0 = { nounwind "less-precise-fpmad"="false" "no-frame-pointer-elim"="true" "no-frame-pointer-elim-non-leaf"="true" "no-infs-fp-math"="false" "no-nans-fp-math"="false" "unsafe-fp-math"="false"

Hi, I’ve run into a case where `llc -mattr=+soft-float` for "armv7-unknown-linux-androideabi” segfaults, while `llc -float-abi=soft` does not. Similarly if the "target-features"="+soft-float” metadata is embedded, llc segfaults. I fear I’m missing something rather subtle here, could someone help me understand the differences? Cheers, Moritz

Hi, In the LLVM documentation it says "there can only be one call to llvm.dbg.declare for a given concrete local variable." However we don't seem to be checking it. opt tool can process IR that violates this rule without complaining. Is this intended, or is it a bug? What would be the consequence when this constraint is broken? -- Xun

Hi Tim, Ohh, I completely forgot to attach the source. Running this with: $ llc -O2 -mcpu=generic HeapStackCheck.ll -mattr=+soft-float -o HeapStackCheck.s results in 0 llc 0x000000010fea65e6 llvm::sys::PrintStackTrace(llvm::raw_ostream&) + 37 1 llc 0x000000010fea5b3a llvm::sys::RunSignalHandlers() + 83 2 llc

On 2020-05-08 2:58 p.m., Xun Li wrote: > Eli, > Yes I was referring to AllCallsAreTailCalls. I will take a look at how > to improve this. > > Nick, > Thanks. I agree that's the proper constrain to mark a call as > tailcall, however not being able to mark a call as tailcall shouldn't > completely kill TCE. (i.e. AllCallsAreTailCalls seems overly > limiting). I