similar to: [LLVMdev] PowerPC codegen experts looking for challenges?

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:32:47 +0100 Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > at my paid job I am pushing the Clang/LLVM combo into evaluation (we > currently use a gcc3.4 generation toolchain). Great! Since we produce for the > embedded domain we need a reliable > host (i.e. simulation i686) / target (PPC) dual setup. To this end I > almost succeeded

Hi PPC folks, as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Just curious, Gabor

Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. > But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Well, it's support is not complete ... The integrated assembler supports all general-purpose instructions the compiler itself generates, but has only partial support for all the rest, in particular nearly no

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

Hi All, here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is *active*. The User* inside of Use is even sometimes NULL, but the algorithm is able to recover it. If there is a non-null User* present, then I am asserting that it equals the computed value. I did not receive feedback for the algorithmic part yet, so I

Looks like people send many names in the contest, so shall I do too. I propose "Lepton", loosely meaning light (featherweight) in Greek. It is used in particle physics to refer to very light particles (electrons, muons). For me it also has the connotations of fastness and restlessness (in the LLVM sense of post-compile optimization). See more at:

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Hi all, I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives nonsensical results. So we need to introduce a configure option for disallowing this method of executable discovery (the other one

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to configure it? Whenever I have had problems building llvm-gcc, I usually have to delete my install and obj dir, make clean llvm, and start over from the top. Its a pain, but it works usually. -Tanya > >

heisenbug wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test >>> passes with this patch :) >>> >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and >> following a readme? >> > > > After

Hi all friends of PowerPC! My last gripe hindering me calling out "VICTORY!" on my large PPC embedded project is thread level storage not being implemented in the backend. I have filed this bug: http://llvm.org/PR12593 I wonder whether there is some fundamental obstacle (compared to the x86 backend, where this feature seems to work), or is it just "simple matter of

Hi there, Is it possible to use GCC 3.4 with LLVM 2.0? I tried to compile GCC 3.4 with LLVM 2.0 and get following error message: /scratch/spa_llvm-2.0/llvm-gcc3.4-1.9.source/build/gcc/xgcc -B/ scratch/spa_llvm-2.0/llvm-gcc3.4-1.9.source/build/gcc/ -B/scratch/ spa_llvm-2.0/llvm-gcc3.4-1.9.source/install/i386-pc-solaris2.11/bin/ - B/scratch/spa_llvm-2.0/llvm-gcc3.4-1.9.source/install/i386-pc-

Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even

Hello all! I have found following empty files that get installed (v3.4rc2) : docs/llvm/html/Dummy.html include/clang/Driver/CC1Options.h What is the story behind them? Or were they just forgotten? Can we (someone) remove these? Cheers, Gabor