similar to: [LLVMdev] Trouble with tweaking test-release.sh script

I have a native compile and the result seems better... You can compare the result of cross compile [1] and the native compile [2]. Any though? Regards, chenwj [1] http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj/tmp/regression-test.txt [2] http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj/tmp/llvm.check-Phase1-Release.txt -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica,

> I'm not particularly happy about the failures here. We need to get to the bottom of them. In the previous email, you tried setting CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS to -fno-strict-aliasing during configuration. Try setting them during the 'make' command: > > $ make ... CFLAGS=-fno-strict-aliasing CXXFLAGS=-fno-strict-aliasing > > etc. > > If you get failures with that,

Hi 陳韋任, Sorry for the late response. On Apr 21, 2012, at 8:03 PM, 陳韋任 wrote: > I have a native compile and the result seems better... You can compare > the result of cross compile [1] and the native compile [2]. > > Any though? > I'm not particularly happy about the failures here. We need to get to the bottom of them. In the previous email, you tried setting CFLAGS and

Update: > Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp > > Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++ ABI, but I leave it to > James to comment. Use "-triple x86_64-none-linux-gnu" makes this test pass. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of Information Science, Academia Sinica, Taiwan (R.O.C.)

On Apr 24, 2012, at 8:05 PM, 陳韋任 wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I forgot to do Phase2/Phase3 build. Here is the Phase3 regression test > result, > > http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj/tmp/phase3-regression-test.txt > > Most LLVM failures are gone. As for ExecutionEngine, I guess ARM JIT is > not at a good shape at this moment, right? Perhaps we should focus on Clang >

Hi Bill, I forgot to do Phase2/Phase3 build. Here is the Phase3 regression test result, http://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj/tmp/phase3-regression-test.txt Most LLVM failures are gone. As for ExecutionEngine, I guess ARM JIT is not at a good shape at this moment, right? Perhaps we should focus on Clang failures? Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Computer Systems Lab, Institute of

Hi Bill, Here is the summary of Clang failures (part of). Clang :: CXX/conv/conv.prom/p2.cpp chandlerc doubts the test itself is fulfill the C++ standard. Although "-fshort-wchar" makes the error disappered, chandlerc think it's not the correct solution. Perhaps it's test bug not clang's. Clang :: CXX/special/class.copy/p15-inclass.cpp Clang

Hi Wei-Ren Chen, Thanks for the reports. Could you ask on the cfe-dev list if adding these flags to the tests are appropriate to fix the issues? -bw On Apr 26, 2012, at 5:35 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > > Update: > >> Clang :: CodeGenCXX/cxx0x-initializer-stdinitializerlist.cpp >> >> Seems to be difference between ARM and Intel C++

Also you might need to check use PostRASchedulerList or PostMachineScheduler, PostRASchedulerList is considered deprecated as mentioned in [1]. [1] http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-April/112348.html HTH, chenwj 2017-06-10 4:03 GMT+08:00 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw>: > Not saying I am totally understand how thing works, but I think you're > misleading >

Thanks for the info, Philip. I will update the LLVM Programmer’s Manual first. Regards, chenwj Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Homepage: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj 2017-04-02 18:11 GMT+08:00 Philip Pfaffe <philip.pfaffe at gmail.com>: > Hi chenwj, > > http://llvm.org/doxygen/Statistic_8h_source.html is the correct one. The > other two are remnants from older doxygen deployments.

Hi weiren, Thanks for your suggestion! Yes, I am trying to do this "nested flattening". It seems that I need a post-dominator tree-based algorithm to flatten the nested loops from the innermost to the outermost, level by level. Is there any feature already existed in LLVM tools? Or similar? On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 2:31 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > If

Hi Changcheng, The question you ask seems to be a different topic from this thread. If possible, I sugguest you lauch another thread so that people know what you want to ask by looking at subject. Since you're working on C backend, you may want to collaborate with Roel, who is working on C backend, too [1]. Regards, chenwj [1]

Thanks :) From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] Sent: 14 April 2017 12:53 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Options for timing passes in LLVM? Refer to `llc` document [1], it would be `--time-passes`. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llc.html HTH,

On Thu, Apr 12, 2012 at 03:48:29PM +0800, 15102925731 wrote: > BTW, the Makefile is as folllow, > > CC := gcc > obj-m := hellomodule.o > KERNELDIR := /lib/modules/`uname -r`/build > PWD := $(shell pwd) > modules: > $(MAKE) -C $(KERNELDIR) M=$(PWD) modules ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Check the Makefile under KERNELDIR directory. Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen

OK. About the error it’s a long story, so it’s probably better to pin some source code here. Below is a piece of code related to my problem, clipped from lib/Transforms/Utils/ValueMapper.cpp. I was wondering what “materialized” means here. Value *Mapper::mapBlockAddress(const BlockAddress &BA) { Function *F = cast<Function>(mapValue(BA.getFunction())); // F may not have

Thanks. That is good suggestion. I will start to work on 4.0 now. It would be good to know the 4.0.x patch release schedule and how to contribute. I found this email containing backporting timeline for 4.0.1 (already done): http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2017-March/111530.html >From email, it is not clear to me whether we have upcoming 4.0.2 or not. Thanks! Yonghong On Fri, Jul

Hi All, I have two trivial patches waiting for review. - https://reviews.llvm.org/D33281 - https://reviews.llvm.org/D32929 Anyone? :-) Regards, chenwj -- Wei-Ren Chen (陳韋任) Homepage: https://people.cs.nctu.edu.tw/~chenwj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Bill, On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 12:52:03PM -0700, Bill Wendling wrote: > Hi Wei-Ren Chen, > > Thanks for the reports. Could you ask on the cfe-dev list if adding these flags to the tests are appropriate to fix the issues? > > -bw If I send patch for LLVM 3.1 rc1, what revision I should againt? The one (r154899) which rc1 branch from, or the current svn head? Regards, chenwj

On Sep 12, 2012, at 8:50 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: >> /nfs_home/chenwj/llvm-3.1/svn/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Frontend/InitHeaderSearch.cpp:197:1: internal compiler error: in extract_insn, at recog.c:2103 > > I think that this is a GCC ICE. Yes, very definitely. Jim > > --Sean Silva > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) >

Hi, Sorry I did not precise that, but I'm already doing that... I have, as you say, two different director, one for source and one for build (where I run my configure)... Cheers ________________________________________ De : 陳韋任 [chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw] Date d'envoi : mardi 8 mai 2012 05:21 À : Rinaldini Julien Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Objet : Re: [LLVMdev] svn trunk