similar to: [LLVMdev] Question on test cases for direct object generation

On Dec 6, 2011, at 7:43 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: >> Is there an official llvm method of creating and submitting test cases that >> don't affect .s assembly files? >> >> When we check in changes that can affect the .s output we submit .ll files >> with the internalized semicolon

On Tue, Dec 6, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Is there an official llvm method of creating and submitting test cases that > don't affect .s assembly files? > > When we check in changes that can affect the .s output we submit .ll files > with the internalized semicolon instructions on how to check the output .s > file. > > For direct

Has anyone converted llvm/projects/test-suite to use the llvm assembler instead of gcc? If so, what was needed to change and how? My assumption is that this would be a good way to test the llvm assembler. Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20121015/a91a495f/attachment.html>

I'm trying to build a standalone assembler for Mips using AsmParser. Following the lead of X86, ARM and MBlaze I have run tblgen -gen-asm-matcher on Mips.td to produce tables and methods to aid the parser (MipsAsmParser.cpp) which is a stripped down ARM implementation. I am getting an assertion for what I believe are multiple register definitions with the same name. llvm-tblgen:

On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Attached are the promised patches for the below proposed change. > Just a quick question from an initial review: isn't the int->bool mapping of flags a bit limiting. Flag can have actual values and not only be there or not be there. Wouldn't a more generic mapping (string->string ?) be more

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:22 PM, Carter, Jack <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > Has anyone converted llvm/projects/test-suite to use the llvm assembler > instead of gcc? > > If so, what was needed to change and how? > > My assumption is that this would be a good way to test the llvm assembler. > Not quite sure what you mean, as far as I know there isn't any assembler

Here are some examples using the gnu assembler reacting to the same input file with different commandline options. These are using the GCC assembler on hello.c // abi o32, arch mips32r2, relocation model pic+cpic mips-linux-gnu-as -mips32r2 -EL -KPIC -o hello_gas.o hello_gas.s e_flags 0x70001007 EF_MIPS_NOREORDER EF_MIPS_PIC EF_MIPS_CPIC E_MIPS_ABI_O32 EF_MIPS_ARCH_32R2 // abi

In my experience assertions are a development tool and should not be a part of the user's experience. With that in mind, do we expect the end user to ever invoke llc directly? The reason I ask is that I directly gave llc some bogus command line input and it asserted. Is it a bug that a graceful error message and exit from llc wasn't performed or is it considered "fair game" to

I've made a change to llvm-objdump and feel uncomfortable checking it in without a test case. Where do the "make check" tests for tools like llvm-objdump go? Worse comes to worse, I'll stick it in test/MC/Mips since it is there I need the change for other Mips/MC tests. Thanks, Jack -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Let me see if I understand the response ;-) When you are saying integrated assembler do you mean llc --filetype=obj? If so, we currently have that for an option when running the test-suite. When you say that to test the llvm-mc assembler for your target you don't substitute the gcc assembler invocation for llvm-mc which would expect the resultant executable run to pass. Instead you have to

Hi, I recently found that thinLTO doesn't deal with globals that has linkonce_odr and unnamed_addr (for macho at least) because it prohibits the autohide optimization during link time. In LLVM, we tagged a global linkonce_odr and unnamed_addr to indicate to the linker can hide them from symbol table if they were picked (aka, linkonce_odr_auto_hide linkage). It is very commonly used for some

I'm trying to generate MipsGenAsmMatcher.inc for MipsAsmParser.cpp. What added restrictions for the .td file contents are there for tblgen -gen-asm-matcher? For the Mips platform we create the following .inc files through tblgen. tablegen(LLVM MipsGenRegisterInfo.inc -gen-register-info) tablegen(LLVM MipsGenInstrInfo.inc -gen-instr-info) tablegen(LLVM MipsGenCodeEmitter.inc -gen-emitter)

There are times that I want to generate an ERROR, but not stop processing of the code. An example of this would be when I find there is a value out of range for a specific operand. producing the error for all instances of this class of errors would be good. Also, I would like to have the error message have some relationship to the offending source. Thanks, Jack -------------- next part

Yes, absolutely. There's two pieces of this that are handy. First, checking the normal integrated-assembler code path. That doesn't check the actual assembler, but rather the binary encoder and object file emitter. To test that, I did runs with a locally modified clang that enabled the integrated assembler by default for my target (ARM/Darwin at the time). The second piece is checking the

Jim, You are correct: MipsSubtarget. For llvm-mc we have a straight MCSubtargetInfo object. For llc we get a MipsSubtarget object which derives from MipsGenSubtargetInfo which derives from TargetSubtargetInfo which derives from MCSubtargetInfo. The patch I hope to send out for review will do this: Add a new data member to MCSubtargetInfo base class. It will be a set of integers that is used or

Hi Jack, You're running into a fundamental problem with the current table generated asmmatcher. Specifically, wants to believe that assembly parsing is context insensitive, or at least close enough that operands can be parsed w/o knowing the context of the instruction. Its idea is to use the operand types to disambiguate which instruction should be selected. It sounds like MIPS 64vs.32 does

Is anyone using the MachO Writer ? If so do you have any test cases as I am moving it over to use the prototype direct object emission code and I need test cases to verify it working correctly. Many thanks in advance, Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Jack, On Jan 25, 2012, at 6:45 PM, "Carter, Jack" <jcarter at mips.com> wrote: > I'm trying to generate MipsGenAsmMatcher.inc for MipsAsmParser.cpp. > > What added restrictions for the .td file contents are there for tblgen -gen-asm-matcher? > Lots, as you're finding, almost all of them completely undocumented. :( > For the Mips platform we create

Hi Steven, I'd prefer not to inhibit importing. I am also concerned about putting these symbols in the llvm.compiler_used (I don't recall earlier discussion around this, but it seems like it could have effects on optimization as you mention). What are the downsides of #2 (adding visibility hidden)? We already do this when promoting internal linkage to external due to importing. I'm

Older targets like Mips had/have assemblers and ABIs that carry a lot of baggage. The small bit of baggage that is giving me fits is that MipsELFObjectWriter needs to know the relocation model (static,pic,cpic), whether we are using xgot (-mgot), which abi (old,new), which architecture (32r[123],64[123]), which if any coprocessor or extention instructions are used (mips16,micromips,etc.). I