similar to: [LLVMdev] Targetting the raspberry pi

It depends, of course, what operating system you have installed on the RPi, but given that it's an ARM1176JZFS (ARMv6) chip, I would expect to see armv6, not armv4t, in the CPU part of the triple. It has a VFP unit, so I'd assume that you'd want to set hardfp (unless you installed an OS that doesn't support hardfp in its standard library), but if ld is complaining then you almost

llvm-toolchain-3.8 seems to have problems on debian armel and raspbian. On raspbian it builds but our armv7 contamination checker blocked it from entering the repo. Further investigation showed that "compiler-rt" was being built with -march=armv7 . I was able to remove the -march with some build-system hacker but then I got a failure on

I saw in the anouncement for the upcoming Boston, MA conference that there will be demos of CentOS on an ARM7 system. I am wondering: does this mean that there is somewhere out there a build of some version of CentOS that might run on a Raspberry Pi (which has an ARM7 processor)? -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services

Hi, > I am using a cross compiler to compiler for the arm5 architecture. For this > architecture it is not allowed that a destination register is also used as source > register. > In 2007 a patch was discussed at the mailing list, however my compiler still is > producing this result. Does anyone know if this patch is actually applied? > > * I use the following arguments:

Renato Golin wrote: [...] > Try setting armv7a-unknown-linux-gnueabihf and see if it works better. No, that doesn't work either. [...] > JIT was never the forte of ARM and I haven't tried yet, but I doubt > it'll be any Debian misconfiguration. The whole architecture > configuration is a bit odd... Debian's clang packages are totally broken on armhf --- the compiler

> Ubuntu on ARM is softfp, right? How about testing hardfp with a > distribution like ArchLinuxArm? Yes, Ubuntu on ARM is softfp. But I already told Bill the platform I prepare to test and the testing day begins *tomorrow*, I prefer what it likes now. BTW, what if I use a cross compiler with hardfp enabled to compile LLVM first, then run it on Ubuntu/ARM? Does it achieve your goal, too?

In R 3.3.2 detectCores() in package parallel reports 2 rather than 1 on Raspberry Pi B+ running Raspbian. (This report is just 'for the record'. The model is superseded and I think no longer produced.) The problem seems to be caused by grep processor /proc/cpuinfo processor : 0 model name : ARMv6-compatible processor rev 7 (v6l) (On Raspberry Pi 2 and 3 there is no error because

On 08/02/13 14:42, Renato Golin wrote: [...] > Can you paste the result of a "clang -v -mcpu=CPU file.c" on your box? I > want to see what are the arguments and the assembler/linker it's > choosing to use. What CPU are we talking about? The box itself is an Allwinner A10; armv7l. /proc/cpuinfo says it's got swp half thumb fastmult vfp edsp neon vfpv3. I've been

Hi, I am using a cross compiler to compiler for the arm5 architecture. For this architecture it is not allowed that a destination register is also used as source register. In 2007 a patch was discussed at the mailing list, however my compiler still is producing this result. Does anyone know if this patch is actually applied? * I use the following arguments: llvm-gcc -mfpu=vfp -mlittle-endian

Hi, I have been reading about llvm and clang and vmkit, and must say: great work guys. So when i got my raspberry pi, and having read that llvm is better at arm than gcc, i compiled llvm on the pi. The pi has a soc with armv6 (i don't know what that means exactly though). The pi is not fast and llvm with clang compilation took 22 h, but worked. hurrah. Then i compiled llvm/clang with itself

<div style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12px"><div> I’ve got an embedded development board with an ARMv4 chip that has no thumb support whatsoever. Given that lib/Target/ARM/ARM.td has no apparent option for ARMv4 without Thumb, can I still use clang for ARMv4, or am I out of luck? Can I expect to use clang in the future, or am I going to be stuck with the

Hello, Last year I tried --- and failed --- to generate float-heavy ARM code via the JIT on an armhf platform. No matter what I did, it would always generate armel code instead. This was on LLVM 3.2, which was all that was available then. Now I'm running into a requirement to do this again: while it's much less crashy than it was, I still can't seem to persuade the JIT to generate

Hi, I've been thinking about ways to get around this in the short term for some time, http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=1388 An end-user workaround is possibly to use at least one register > r7 for the MOV form of the instruction. In that case, what is listed in the bug as the CPY instruction (which is the ARMv6 version generated if both Rd and Rm are <= r7) will become a valid MOV

Hi Dmitri, You're right. The lli code should be cleaned up. As David said, there was a time when the call to invalidate the instruction cache was necessary. It isn't necessary anymore. -Andy -----Original Message----- From: Dmitri Rubinstein [mailto:dmitri.rubinstein at googlemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 7:20 AM To: David Tweed Cc: Kaylor, Andrew; LLVM Dev Subject: Re:

On 8 February 2013 14:28, David Given <dg at cowlark.com> wrote: > Debian's clang packages are totally broken on armhf --- the compiler > emits a confused warning about the platform being unrecognised, and then > generates softfloat code --- so I was wondering about LLVM itself. I'm using Ubuntu on Pandas and Chromebooks and LLVM itself behaves well, with the right set of

On 06/22/2015 11:26 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > I saw in the anouncement for the upcoming Boston, MA conference that there > will be demos of CentOS on an ARM7 system. I am wondering: does this mean that > there is somewhere out there a build of some version of CentOS that might run > on a Raspberry Pi (which has an ARM7 processor)? > The Pi2 is armv7 .. the original pi is armv6.

I don't know if this is the right place to ask but is there any timetable for thumb mode support on sub-ARMv6 processors? The exact processor support what i'm interested in is arm7tdmi. -Waltteri

I wanted to roughly benchmark how the different version of libopus performed at each complexity level for a 6kbit/s output opus file. This was conducted on a Raspberry Pi so it is a constant hardware platform. This was done on an early Pi so only 256MB RAM but it was never used up so should not make a difference. I compiled the three final versions of each major release of libopus so that was

Raspberry Pi 1 and Zero use the arm1176jzf-s chip which AFAIK doesn't support NEON intrinsics. This may be a bug with the configure script because it appears to be compiling with NEON enabled. Lifeng can you comment? Is there a way to override the CPU detection in this case? Samuel, as a workaround you can download and compile an older version of the library. I think 1.1.2 predated the NEON

Hi all, Since the 3.1 testing day is coming and be a ARM tester, I would like to make sure everything is O.K. so that we don't waste the precious time. As discussed on the ML before, I plan to cross compile LLVM/Clang first, then run regression test and test suite on the pandaboards. Could someone help me check to see if I miss something? Thanks! Here is the pandaboard configuration,