similar to: [LLVMdev] Build fails when in a path containing spaces

Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it seems that a number of core instructions—I'm specifically running in to `atomicrmw`, `fence`, and `cmpxchg` at the moment—cannot be constructed from the C bindings, and are therefore also inaccessible to the OCaml bindings. There are opcodes for each of these in the llvm-c/Core.h, but there seems to be no way to construct them. Is there

How soon would I need to submit a patch for this for it to have a comfortable shot at making it into the 3.2 release? On Sep 14, 2012, at 8:05 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > > On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > >> Is there a reason these should be omitted? > > Not in particular. Things are

I finally got around to adding these. The patch is posted in a pull request on my copy of llvm.git: https://github.com/jrk/llvm/pull/3 and a simple test with OCaml is here: https://gist.github.com/3948460 Feedback welcome. On Sep 14, 2012, at 7:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Forgive me if I'm missing something obvious, but it seems that a >

From what I can tell, the truncstore paths all fail instruction selection in the current PTX backend. This is easy to work around for int types >= 16 bits by setting the truncstore action to expand in PTXISelLowering.cpp, but this cannot handle i8 values, since the PTX backend has no register representation for i8s. As a result of all this, it is not possible to store to i8 pointers at all.

I notice that there is not currently any intrinsic support for atomics in the PTX backend. Is this on the roadmap? Should it be as easy to add as it seems (plumbing through just like the thread ID instructions, &c.)? The obvious difference is that these ops have side effects. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type:

What is the current state of the JIT on Windows x64? I have noticed intermittent conversation about past incompatibility due to the calling convention idiosyncrasies, as well as some suggestion from last fall that it was targeted for a fix in the 2.5 timeframe, but see no definitive conclusion. Is this working in 2.5, in trunk, or likely to be in trunk soon?

On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley<jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > What is the current state of the JIT on Windows x64? Broken; at the very least, there's http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3739 . -Eli

I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic function. I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the standard path in the C++ API.

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 5:18 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu>wrote: > I can't seem to find reference to intrinsics, beyond the is_intrinsic > function. > > I am building a backend which needs to perform some target-specific > code-generation (for SSE, AVX, and NEON), and intrinsics are the > standard path in the C++ API. > What happens if you just

On Sep 14, 2012, at 4:53 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu> wrote: > Is there a reason these should be omitted? Not in particular. Things are added to the C API as needed and usually on demand. -eric

Loads (on ptx64) with an sext of a computed index operand fail instruction selection: LLVM ERROR: Cannot select: 0x7ff01401c210: i64,ch = load 0x10580e820, 0x7ff01401b510, 0x7ff01401b910<LD4[%memref1], sext from i32> [ID=8] 0x7ff01401b510: i64 = PTXISD::LOAD_PARAM 0x10580e820, 0x7ff01401b410 [ORD=2] [ID=6] 0x7ff01401b910: i64 = undef [ORD=4] [ID=3] This is for code of the form: %ptr

Thanks, all. I didn’t realize a 7.0 RC was public and changed to 3.4—I will go down that road for now, though I’ll probably also look into integrating variants of the SPIR converter in the future. Another possibility is to skip libnvvm altogether and use LLVM's NVPTX target.  This is of course harder since you have to configure the passes yourself instead of just calling a few C

On Sat, 2005-06-18 at 10:32 +0200, Henrik Bach wrote: > Hi LLVMers, > > The root of my SRC_DIR is: /home/hb/projects/src/llvm-1/llvm/ > and the root of my OBJ_DIR is: /home/hb/projects/build/FC1/llvm-1-1. > > However, the configure script seems to have stripped some of the / from the > paths: > Makefile.common:63: /home/hb/projects/buildFC1llvm-1-1/Makefile.config: No

This question is specifically motivated by the practical constraints of NVVM, but I don't know anywhere better to ask (hopefully, e.g., @jholewinski is still following), and I believe it concerns general LLVM issues: NVIDIA's libNVVM is built on LLVM 3.2. This means its bitcode and LL text parsers are from that generation. It's interface calls for adding modules as either bitcode

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Jonathan Ragan-Kelley <jrk at csail.mit.edu>wrote: > I notice that there is not currently any intrinsic support for atomics in > the PTX backend. Is this on the roadmap? Should it be as easy to add as it > seems (plumbing through just like the thread ID instructions, &c.)? The > obvious difference is that these ops have side effects. > It

Hi All, I am trying to configure llvm so with test-suite enabled. I have downloaded the test-suite. Spec 2000 benchmarks sources are plugged in speccpu2000 at $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite-externals/speccpu2000/benchspec e.g.: 164.gzip dir is $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite-externals/speccpu2000/benchspec/164.gzip My configure command is: ../configure --disable-optimized

Resolve the given path within the chroot, so scrub can be invoked outside the chroot on an already-resolved path. Given that realpath is used, its availability is checked manually, since scrub-file already depends on the "scrub" feature. Slightly ugly, but on the other hand realpath is generally available nowadays, so the check should not be failing. Add few tests in scrub-file for this

Personally, I don't think LLVM projects should need much in the way of autoconf stuff. They certainly don't need to replicate things like install-sh and mkinstalldirs. I'd vote for taking these out of the projects rather than making the makefiles deal with them. I think in most cases these are just historical artifacts that have been with the projects since long before the new

Hi! In current LLVM CVS: llvm/projects/Stacker/Makefile.common.in llvm/projects/sample/Makefile.common.in llvm-java/llvm-java/Makefile.common.in have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.common that have line: include $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config (also $(LLVM_OBJ_ROOT)/Makefile.config used in llvm-test/Makefile.config.in) and llvm/Makefile.config.in have lines: INSTALL_SH :=

Hi Duncan, Do you have sources also in the $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite/External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip? The following is content of above directory in my case. I have copied the CINT2000 sources in this directory manually. $ls -1 $LLVM_SRC_ROOT/projects/test-suite/External/SPEC/CINT2000/164.gzip 164.gzip.reference_output 164.gzip.reference_output.small compile_info compile_parms