similar to: [LLVMdev] How to generate a non-fatal error from the backend

On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > > If I may add my two cents: > > > > I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am > > working on. And I wholeheartedly agree with Justin that it is a > > problem, if LLVM is allowed to freely

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: >> >

On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 > Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Mikael Lyngvig wrote: > > > > > If I may add my two cents: > > > > > > I am planning to use LLVM as the backend for a compiler I am >

On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>wrote: > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Justin Holewinski > <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 03 Jun 2012 12:12:06 -0700 > >> Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>

On 12 May 2016 at 16:19, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The problem in PR24071 seemed to be that clang proceeded with compilation > even though the inline asm was not valid. I'm not sure that there is value > in trying to make the backend continue compiling code that most likely has > no meaning. I'm not 100% convinced that is the

On Jul 17, 2013, at 2:12 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: >>> ** Advices

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>

Sorry, just getting caught up on an old thread. I haven't been involved in discussions of this. On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > First, let me try to clarify my proposal, in case there was any confusion about that. LLVMContext already has a hook for diagnostics, setInlineAsmDiagnosticHandler() et al. I was suggesting that we rename those

Hi all, I'd like to add a new diagnostic handler to llc. Right now, llc doesn't have one at all, and instead just exits after the first error that it encounters. This is very different from the behaviour of clang and other front ends, who try to report as many errors as possible before exiting. I think this is very important for testing LLVM's CodeGen in a more robust fashion. For

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

On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 9:15 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > Sorry, just getting caught up on an old thread. I haven't been involved in discussions of this. > > On Jul 17, 2013, at 8:53 AM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: >> First, let me try to clarify my proposal, in case there was any confusion about that. LLVMContext already has a

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

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)

I'm getting this error in RegAllocFast.cpp in compiling one source file in test-suite as the result of a new Mips fast-isel patch I was testing. It apparently just generates bad code and continues? // Nothing we can do. Report an error and keep going with a bad allocation. if (MI->isInlineAsm()) MI->emitError("inline assembly requires more registers than

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 output we currently add to our own test suites that check for correctness. Does the llvm community depend on the