similar to: [LLVMdev] error: instruction requires: thumb2

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > I recently did a cross-compiling using clang (built with host=x86, target=arm) with the following command: > > > clang -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=soft -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux-gnueabi -integrated-as main.c -o main.o -c > > and get error message: > >

It works. But a follow-up question: why do I have to compile it to thumb mode in order to pass the compilation? Is there a way to make it compile to regular arm mode? Thanks. - Lei On Aug 16, 2012, at 4:00 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: >> Hi Everybody, >> >> I recently did a cross-compiling

Sure. Use legal ARM mode syntax for the instruction. Specifically, there is no offset immediate for the ARM mode LDREX instruction. It's illegal syntax to supply one, even if it's zero. -Jim On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Lei Zhao <leizhao833 at gmail.com> wrote: > It works. But a follow-up question: why do I have to compile it to thumb mode in order to pass the compilation? Is

Hola a tod en s, explico lo que estoy intentando hacer... Tengo un listado de url comprimidas de twitter, entre las cuales hay muchas repetidas, por lo que el número de registros llega a más de 15K. Por otro lado tengo otra lista de esas url únicas con su equivalente ya descomprimido llegando a un registro de 900. El problema que tengo es que estoy intentando hacer un loop para hacer la

Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > I'm trying to understand how predicated/masked instructions can be > generated in llvm, specifically an instruction where a set bit in the > mask will write the new result into the corresponding vector lane in > the destination and a clear bit will cause the lane in the destination > to remain what it was before the

Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > Ah, I think I get it now. This was mentioned earlier in the thread, > but it didn't click at the time. It sounds like I can do instruction > selection with a pattern like (omitting selection of the sources): > > let Constraints = "$dst = $oldvalue" in { > def MASKEDARITH : MyInstruction< >

On May 10, 2013, at 11:53 AM, dag at cray.com wrote: > Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > >> Ah, I think I get it now. This was mentioned earlier in the thread, >> but it didn't click at the time. It sounds like I can do instruction >> selection with a pattern like (omitting selection of the sources): >> >> let Constraints = "$dst

On May 9, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: >> Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: >> >>> %tx = select %mask, %x, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >>> %ty = select %mask, %y, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >>> %sum = fadd %tx, %ty >>> %newvalue

On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 8:10 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > >> %tx = select %mask, %x, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >> %ty = select %mask, %y, <0.0, 0.0, 0.0 ...> >> %sum = fadd %tx, %ty >> %newvalue = select %mask, %sum, %oldvalue >> >> I believe the generated instructions depend on whether

I'm trying to understand how predicated/masked instructions can be generated in llvm, specifically an instruction where a set bit in the mask will write the new result into the corresponding vector lane in the destination and a clear bit will cause the lane in the destination to remain what it was before the instruction executed. I've seen a few places that suggest 'select' is the

Since there are no constructors for Value, how do you properly insert a new Value? If I create a pointer Value *newValue and then call AA.copyValue(oldValue, newValue), this does not work, since newValue is not allocated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20120203/44086cf5/attachment.html>

Ryan Taylor wrote: > Since there are no constructors for Value, how do you properly insert a > new Value? Value is a pure base. If you want to construct a new Value, then you want to construct a global variable or instruction or argument or something in particular. > If I create a pointer Value *newValue and then call > AA.copyValue(oldValue, newValue), this does not work, since

Nick, First, thanks for responding. Secondly, I just want to create an exact copy of an already exisitng Value, this should be pretty simple to do but I'm unclear on how to do this? For example, PHINode::getIncomingValue (unsigned) returns a "Value" and I want to make a copy of that Value. Is there some other way to do this other than copyValue() that I'm missing? On Sat,

Ah, I think I get it now. This was mentioned earlier in the thread, but it didn't click at the time. It sounds like I can do instruction selection with a pattern like (omitting selection of the sources): let Constraints = "$dst = $oldvalue" in { def MASKEDARITH : MyInstruction< (outs VectorReg:$dst), (ins MaskReg:$mask, VectorReg:$src1, VectorReg:$src2,

Hi, Has anyone successfully implemented the :onsubmit option for form_remote_tag. It doesn''t seem to work for me. Is there any specific version of rails which is required for the same. Here''s my piece of code. <script> function set_tojid(){ alert(''onsubmit''); } </script> <%= form_remote_tag :update => '''', :url => {

Hi Bjorn, > currently the following two lines of code with integer variables get compiled completely differently: > > if (d0<tmp) d0=tmp; there must be something else going on because this void bar(int); void foo(int d0, int tmp) { if (d0 < tmp) d0=tmp; bar(d0); } when compiled like this clang -S -O4 -o - sel.c gives this define void @foo(i32 %d0, i32 %tmp) nounwind

Hi, currently the following two lines of code with integer variables get compiled completely differently: if (d0<tmp) d0=tmp; d0 = d0<tmp? tmp : do; The first is compiled into two separate basic blocks, which my backend then optimizes into a conditional move with if-conversion (after instruction selection so not much optimization possible anymore). The second line is compiled into

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 9:53 AM, <dag at cray.com> wrote: > Jeff Bush <jeffbush001 at gmail.com> writes: > >> Ah, I think I get it now. This was mentioned earlier in the thread, >> but it didn't click at the time. It sounds like I can do instruction >> selection with a pattern like (omitting selection of the sources): >> >> let Constraints =

Hi, A64 versus A32/T32 code generation is controlled by the -target option which I don’t believe is under discussion here. James On 18 May 2016, at 13:17, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org<mailto:bruce at hoult.org>> wrote: Note that armv8a modifies the A32 and T32 instruction sets, and is therefore an important -march option for 32 bit code. Therefore armv8a can not be used to imply

I've been playing around with using LLVM on one of our projects, which runs on an arm1176jzf-s processor. When compiling for Thumb, a couple of the generated assembly files end up with a 'ror.w' instruction, which is a Thumb2 instruction. Since arm1176jzf-s doesn't support Thumb2, the assembler then turns around and barfs on it. I don't have any experience with this