similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM on ARM testing.

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > Hello, > > I asked here for kind of reference GCC version which LLVM development > team is using for *native* testing on ARM hardware. (no cross > compilation!) last week or so. I've been curious myself how the > situation looks and so I tested LLVM 2.9 as a reference point and LLVM >

On 3 July 2011 21:32, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > please see http://ghcarm.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/llvm-on-arm-testing/ > > Is there anything other I might do for you to get those regressions fixed? Hi Karel, This is great! I can see there's only a handful of errors. All JIT errors seem to be the same (MC). All O2 errors, too (MIPS). The select.ll

Hi Renato, On 07/ 5/11 12:20 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 3 July 2011 21:32, Karel Gardas<karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: >> please see http://ghcarm.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/llvm-on-arm-testing/ >> >> Is there anything other I might do for you to get those regressions fixed? > > Hi Karel, > > This is great! > > I can see there's only a handful

Hello, I'm trying to find myself, but anyway, I'm curious what's the recommended GNU C++ version for LLVM compilation on ARM/Linux platform? I'm using various version of Ubuntu and so far the best compiler I found was 4.4.1 (Ubuntu 4.4.1-4ubuntu9)[1]. With this and with just -O1 as optimize option I've been able to get to 1 failing testcase. Other tested were 4.4.3 and

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > Hello, > > I asked here for kind of reference GCC version which LLVM development > team is using for *native* testing on ARM hardware. (no cross > compilation!) last week or so. I've been curious myself how the > situation looks and so I tested LLVM 2.9 as a reference point and LLVM >

On 06/29/12 11:12 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 29 June 2012 17:46, Karel Gardas<karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: >> Yes and no. Shortly: original GHC/ARM/LLVM port was done by Stephen on >> ARMv5/Qemu IIRC. I've later added whole VFP support and ARMv7 support. The >> code in GHC is properly #ifdefed, so if there is no VFP available on pre >> ARMv6, then

Hello, I'm trying to convince llc to compile into thumb2 ISA on ARMv7. I'm using: -march=thumb -mattr=v7,thumb2,vfp3 but llc complains about this with: llc: error: invalid target 'thumb -mattr=v7,thumb2,vfp3' I'm using LLVM from Aug 29 2011. To me the set of options looks sane so I'd like to ask what's wrong with this. Thanks! Karel

On 06/24/11 06:53 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Karel Gardas<karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: >> My question is if it is a known bug or unknown in which case where to >> report it and if also include compiled *.bc file or not. > > Haven't seen it before... see > http://llvm.org/docs/HowToSubmitABug.html , and please do include the

On 08/ 1/12 05:14 AM, Marshall Clow wrote: > Anyone know the status of this patch? > Did it get applied? Rejected? Ok'ed but not applied? Hello, as far as I know, it's not presented in today's HEAD. Thanks, Karel

On 07/ 4/11 01:39 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: > For the JIT failures, it would be nice if you could track down the SVN > revision when it started failing. (We have an ARM buildbot at > http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 , > but the JIT was already broken when it was set up.) I've used my i.MX53 board to get this, but I'm returning it today back to

Hello Cameron, thanks a lot for your fast answer, which just makes me curious if making ARM tailcalls on par with x86 in the future is on some of the development plans already? If not, then what do you think is the complexity of such work? Thanks! Karel On 06/17/11 10:41 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > They work pretty well now, at least on Thumb2 / Darwin. It is still fairly conservative

Hi Tim, On 01/ 8/14 10:24 PM, Tim Northover wrote: > Hi Karel, > >> I've observed the same issue with LLVM 3.4 as distributed by Ubuntu 13.10 >> and with LLVM HEAD compiled on January 6. I'm able to provide the byte-code >> file which results in this issue, but would first like to know if this is a >> known issue in AArch64 target support or if I shall submit

On 26 June 2011 10:16, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > So I'm curious what's *the* recommended compiler on this platform which > LLVM development is using? Hi Karel, I'm not sure what test cases you're talking about, but we use CodeSourcery's GCC and binutils (latests, not stable, because of new core support) and it works a treat. You can

On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > On 07/ 4/11 01:39 AM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >> For the JIT failures, it would be nice if you could track down the SVN >> revision when it started failing.  (We have an ARM buildbot at >> http://google1.osuosl.org:8011/builders/clang-native-arm-cortex-a9 , >> but the JIT was

All, I would like to submit the attached patch, which allows the GHC (Glasgow Haskell Compiler) calling convention to work on ARM targets. Could some nice person please review this code, so I can move towards getting it committed? I have thoroughly tested this patch again GHC on a Debian-ARM (armel) system. Unfortunately my understanding of LLVM is limited, so it's likely I'm not

Hello, I've compiled today's LLVM on ARM/Linux machine and attempted to use our GHC/ARM port (which is using LLVM as a backend for generating machine code) with it but I've failed in compiling GHC alone as LLVM fails on me with following message: llc: /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-ghc-arm/lib/CodeGen/MachineInstr.cpp:612: void llvm::MachineInstr::addOperand(const

Hello, it looks like I do have infinite loop in llc on linux/armv7 platform somewhere in llvm::SmallVectorImpl. Two backtraces obtained with 10 seconds delay are: 0x0099be14 in llvm::SmallVectorTemplateCommon<llvm::SDNode*>::setEnd (this=0x7ee90b38, P=0x5c06988) at /export/home/karel/vcs/llvm-head/include/llvm/ADT/SmallVector.h:103 103 void setEnd(T *P) { this->EndX = P; }

On 1 August 2012 09:17, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > as far as I know, it's not presented in today's HEAD. If you want it applied, you have to send it to llvm-commits, not here. If you sent it there already, ping the thread that people will respond. -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/

Hi Jim and Eric! thanks a lot for your fantastically fast reply. I'm going to update and will report tomorrow when all the building is done. Thanks! Karel On 08/29/11 11:36 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > Hi Karel, > > Mind trying again with current top of tree? Owen's fixed a few things today that were manifesting with that error. > > -Jim > > On Aug 29, 2011, at 2:33

I don't know if GuaranteedTailCallOpt is in anyone's plans. It might be a good idea to implement some time. I am not sure what GHC's exact needs are, though. Cameron On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Hello Cameron, > > thanks a lot for your fast answer, which just makes me curious if making ARM tailcalls on par with x86 in the future is on some of