similar to: [LLVMdev] Can't check out LLVM trunk ?

Hi James, clang is able to generate correct debug informations for 64-bit target at -O2. My feeling, given some other experiments I've done, is that debug information generated for x86 32-bit might be broken for parameters as long as they are not 'homed' in the code (local copy to an automatic variable). It seems that when llvm.declare is turned into a llvm.value for parameter there

Hi James, I fully agree with you and understand your statement about -O2. Now some questions for you: Did you try to reproduce experiments described in my previous e-mail ? Did you look at debug informations generated for 'n' parameter on x86 32-bit & x86 64-bit ? I'm working on my own front-end for LLVM and I had difficulties with debug information when they are related to x86

On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? > Thanks > Seb > > 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout =

Hi all, Can someone give me advice on what should be a good definition of target datalayout for an ARM cortex-A9 + neon target and x86 32-bit ? Shall I use a different definition for a cortex-A9 without neon ? Thanks for your advices Best Regards Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi James, > > I fully agree with you and understand your statement about -O2. > > Now some questions for you: > Did you try to reproduce experiments described in my previous e-mail ? > Did you look at debug informations generated for 'n' parameter on x86 32-bit > & x86 64-bit ? >

Hi all, I'm new to this list and I would like to know who is involved in llc ARM backend maintenance/evolution. -- Seb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20111005/5abc7f0d/attachment.html>

I tried bu clang seems to support only target on which it has been compiled. If I use: with clang -S -emit-llvm t.c -o t.ll I've got following file for t.ll ; ModuleID = 't.c' target datalayout = "e-p:64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:64:64-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-s0:64:64-f80:128:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple =

You can compile an empty C source code with clang -S -emit-llvm and copy the data layout from there. 2011/10/27 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > Can someone give me advice on what should be a good definition of target > datalayout for an ARM cortex-A9 + neon target and x86 32-bit ? > Shall I use a different definition for a cortex-A9 without neon ? > Thanks for

Hi Devang, Not only "vtable ptr" is a problem, for this field it seems that CLANG emits a NULL metadata node which is translated into 'i32 0'. The other problem is for 'isArtificial' field with is described as being of type i1 and CLANG emits i32. Looking at sources, it seems that it should be a i32 flag field. Hope this helps, Best Regards Seb 2011/12/15 Devang

Hi all, Anyone have ideas/info on this topic ? Thanks Seb 2012/3/2 Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> > Hi all, > > I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting > x86 32-bit: > > ; ModuleID = 'check.c' > target datalayout = >

Hi all, I'm using trunk version of LLVM/CLANG. When I compile attached files on my 64-bit Ubuntu 10.04 LTS system as follows: clang -O2 -g check.c main.c -o check64 When I do gdb check64 and set a breakpoint to the check routine and executes to the breakpoint, I've got: Breakpoint 1, check (result=0x601110, expect=0x601020, n=53) at check.c:7 7 { As you can see I can inspect

2011/12/9 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> > On Fri, Dec 09, 2011 at 10:03:37AM +0100, Seb wrote: > > I think my explanation is not clear, my front-end did NOTt generate > > 'llvm.memcpy' it generate LL code that after use of LLVM 'opt' get > > transformed by 'loop-idom' pass into an 'llvm.memcpy' for an overlapping >

Hi all, I'm using my own front-end to generate following code .ll file targeting x86 32-bit: ; ModuleID = 'check.c' target datalayout = "e-p:32:32:32-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64-f32:32:32-f64:32:64-v64:64:64-v128:128:128-a0:0:64-f80:32:32-n8:16:32" target triple = "i386-pc-linux-gnu" @.str581 = internal constant [52 x i8] c"---- test number %d

Hi Jim, Thanks for the advice. Since I'm using LLVM 2.9 style of debug information. Will this code benefit from those improvement or should I generate LLVM 3.0 style of debug information ? Best Regards Seb 2012/3/6 Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> > > On Mar 6, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Seb <babslachem at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all, > > Anyone have ideas/info on

Hi Duncan, What do you mean by "a data layout string in your module" ? Best Regards Seb 2011/10/18 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > Hi Seb, > > > I'm writting following LLVM assembly: > > > > ; ModuleID = 'structaccess.ll' > > > > not having a data layout string in your module disables many optimizations. > > Ciao,

Hi all, Is there an easy way to check that debug metadata in a .ll file are well formed ? Thanks for you answers Seb

Hi all, Is there a way to disable use of specific optimization pass from opt at command line level ? I would like to do something like: opt -O2 -no-loop-idiom ... And I want to this to disable all invocations of loop-idom optimization, but keep all other -O2 opts. Thanks for your help Best Regards Sbb -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Function.cpp:167: error: call of overloaded `AddInteger(uint32_t&)' is ambiguous /home/Seb/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/FoldingSet.h:151: note: candidates are: void llv m::FoldingSetImpl::NodeID::AddInteger(int) /home/Seb/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/FoldingSet.h:152: note: void llvm::FoldingSetIm pl::NodeID::AddInteger(unsigned int) /home/Seb/llvm/include/llvm/ADT/FoldingSet.h:153: note: void

Hi Seb, > Already done here : http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=12130 that doesn't describe the original issue (second store removed), it is talking about a different issue that appeared at -O1 (and it first seemed to explain your original problem; but now I think the -O1 transform was correct and does not explain your original problem). Ciao, Duncan. > > Thanks for your

Hi James, Thanks for the answer, for Cortex-A9 would you recommend to generate thumb2 code or ARM code ? What would be the best performance wise ? Best Regards Seb > -----Original Message----- > From: James Molloy [mailto:james.molloy at arm.com] > Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2012 9:57 AM > To: Sebastien DELDON-GNB > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] llc support