similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Adding an option to llvm-link to allow it to get a list of input bitcode file names from a file

Well, although cl::ParseCommandLineOptions contains support for @file. By default it is disabled, which is the case for llvm-link. To enable @file support in llvm-link, a small change is needed: --- llvm-link.cpp.orig 2012-09-20 16:10:50.000000000 -0400 +++ llvm-link.cpp 2012-09-20 16:11:24.000000000 -0400 @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ LLVMContext &Context = getGlobalContext();

Liu, Yaxun (Sam) wrote: > I am proposing to add an option to llvm-link allow it to get a list of > input bitcode file names from a file. > > The reason is that there is a limitation for command line length which > limits the number of input bitcode files that can be passed to > llvm-link. By adding this option we can bypass such limitation. > > The name of the option can be

Could we enable ReadResponseFiles=true by default? 2012/9/21 Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com>: > Well, although cl::ParseCommandLineOptions contains support for @file. By default it is disabled, which is the case for llvm-link. > > To enable @file support in llvm-link, a small change is needed: > > --- llvm-link.cpp.orig 2012-09-20 16:10:50.000000000 -0400 > +++

I have no objection to that. Actually I am curious why it is disabled by default. If we enable ReadResponseFiles=true by default, we will automatically get support of response file (@file) in all llvm tools. The only issue I can think of is that some users may have file names starting with "@". Sam -----Original Message----- From: NAKAMURA Takumi [mailto:geek4civic at gmail.com]

My assumption is that a user will either specify input file names in the command line or passing them by a list file, but usually would not do both. Making these two different ways of specifying input files mutually exclusive may avoid confusion and misuse. Sam From: Villmow, Micah Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 12:54 PM To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam); llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: RE: [LLVMdev]

Why is there a restriction on the usage between command line and input file? It seems that they both should be able to co-exist and the resulting linking is done as a set of all the bitcode files. From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 9:51 AM To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: [LLVMdev] RFC:

On 21 September 2012 10:44, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > I have no objection to that. Actually I am curious why it is disabled by default. > > If we enable ReadResponseFiles=true by default, we will automatically get support of response file (@file) in all llvm tools. The only issue I can think of is that some users may have file names starting with

Thanks Chris for the comment. Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables response file support and removes the argument for controlling/disabling response file support. The patch also contains a simple test. I did regression check and there are no regressions. + llvmdev Sam From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com] Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 2:20 PM To:

I do not have write access. Please commit the patch for me. Thanks. Sam -----Original Message----- From: Rafael Espíndola [mailto:rafael.espindola at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 10:38 AM To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: NAKAMURA Takumi; Nick Lewycky; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Adding an option to llvm-link to allow it to get a list of input bitcode file names

Can we call this a "parameters file"? I find "response file" to be non-obvious. On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > Thanks Chris for the comment. > > > > Since there is no objection, I attached a new patch which enables response > file support and removes the argument for controlling/disabling response >

Response file is the conventional name for files serving this purpose. A google search shows the usage of "response file" is not rare. Also it has been used in the LLVM documentation: http://llvm.org/docs/CommandLine.html#response-files Sam -----Original Message----- From: Matt Beaumont-Gay [mailto:matthewbg at google.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 1:35 PM To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam)

> On May 16, 2015, at 12:21 PM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > > I am thinking maybe the functionality of the bi-way conversion can be kept at llvm/lib/Bitcode/SPIRV, which will facilitate OpenCL vendors to do conversions between LLVM and SPIR-V. On the other hand, we create a llvm/Target/SPIR-V, which uses llvm/lib/Bitcode/SPIRV to generate SPIR-V. The SPIR-V

2015-05-16 6:42 GMT+01:00 Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>: > > > On May 15, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: > > > > +1 to lib/Target/SPIRV/(Reader|Writer) > > > > I really like this idea. I’ve talked with some people on both the LLVM and Khronos sides and I really think adding SPIR-V support to LLVM as an optional

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 6:11 AM, David Chisnall <David.Chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk > wrote: > On 13 May 2015, at 13:56, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > > > > Khronos Group SPIR WG is working on a bi-way converter between LLVM > bitcode and SPIR-V ( > https://www.khronos.org/registry/spir-v/specs/1.0/SPIRV.pdf ) binary and > is willing to upstream

Khronos Group SPIR WG is working on a bi-way converter between LLVM bitcode and SPIR-V (https://www.khronos.org/registry/spir-v/specs/1.0/SPIRV.pdf ) binary and is willing to upstream it to the LLVM project. The bi-way converter uses a common in-memory representation of SPIR-V. It works by breaking down a module to instructions and construct the translated module in memory then output it.

I don't see any problem mangling it to be honest even though there seems to be only one prototype anyways. We could add restrict in as well. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> Sent: 17 September 2016 05:32:54 To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com); Anastasia

+ Alexey Anastasia According to SPIR spec v1.2 s2.10.3 2.10.3 The printf function The printf function is supported, and is mangled according to its prototype as follows: int printf(constant char * restrict fmt, ... ) Note that the ellipsis formal argument (...) is mangled to argument type specifier z It seems printf should be mangled. Alexey/Anastasia, What do you think? Thanks. Sam From:

+ llvm-dev From: Sumner, Brian Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 3:11 PM To: Anastasia Stulova <Anastasia.Stulova at arm.com>; Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com>; cfe-dev (cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org) <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Pan, Xiuli <xiuli.pan at intel.com>; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com) <alexey.bader at intel.com> Cc: Stellard, Thomas

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:31 AM, Liu, Yaxun (Sam) <Yaxun.Liu at amd.com> wrote: > > > > *From:* Mehdi Amini [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com <mehdi.amini at apple.com>] > > *Sent:* Thursday, June 18, 2015 11:24 AM > *To:* Liu, Yaxun (Sam) > *Cc:* llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu

So we have been in discussions within the Khronos SPIR-V work group on our push to get our SPIR-V code into tip LLVM and have drawn the following conclusions; * We absolutely must create a fully fledged backend that uses all the machinery that target backends are expected to use. * We probably have to split out the SPIR-V -> LLVM IR into a separate project from LLVM ala Clang et