similar to: [LLVMdev] ARM c++ exceptions handling not working with clang/llvm-3.2?

On Aug 5, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > Bill, > ooops, yes, I described the meaning of "throw(A)" backwards, I thought that might be the case. :) > but I still > think my example shows why you cannot merge LandingpadInst while > inlining because multiple filter-lists on a LandingpadInst don't make sense. > > Perhaps I'm reading your

On Jul 28, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Peter Lawrence wrote: > John, > I'm still not sure what you're talking about, I have included the assembly > output from two compilations, one with a user explicit catch-all, one with only an > implicit cleanup, the DWARF Action Table and Types Table are absolutely identical, > as are the indexes used to reference the Action Table from

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 11:09 PM, Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg at embtoolkit.org> wrote: > This simple patch makes asan compile for mips (tested on mips32r2el). > The following test code: > int main() > { > char *x = (char*)malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); > free(x); > return x[5]; > } It would help to enable compiler-rt tests on mips builders to

This simple patch makes asan compile for mips (tested on mips32r2el). The following test code: int main() { char *x = (char*)malloc(10 * sizeof(char*)); free(x); return x[5]; } leads to the following output at runtime: ================================================================= ==267== ERROR: AddressSanitizer: heap-use-after-free on address 0x77900fd5 at pc 0x409e1c bp 0x7fb781d8 sp

On 18 March 2013 09:43, Abdoulaye Walsimou Gaye <awg at embtoolkit.org> wrote: > ** > This is the same issue reported here > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=15429 > Yes, it does look like the same problem, thanks! Silky, feel free to add your error messages to that bug to make sure it's taken into account when fixed. cheers, --renato -------------- next part

On 10 September 2010 04:47, Liu <proljc at gmail.com> wrote: > trying this: > clang -march=armv7-a -mcpu=cortex-a9 -ccc-host-triple > arm-none-linux -ccc-gcc-name arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc a.c Hi Liu, That doesn't work for me. $ clang -march=armv7-a -mcpu=cortex-a9 -ccc-host-triple arm-none-linux -ccc-gcc-name arm-none-linux-gnueabi-gcc alias.c clang: warning: unknown

On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 4:31 PM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> wrote: > On 18 July 2012 15:24, salvatore benedetto > <salvatore.benedetto at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure how to interpret the above output, but I don't understand >> why if say -triple armv4t-none--gnueabi . > > Ok, we're getting there... ;) Glad you are confident.

Dear all I use arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2, because the code generated by version 3.X and 4.X can not run on SimpleScalar. So I use the arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2 *only*, the version is recommended by SimpleScalar. The code generated by arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2 can run on SimpleScalar. Now I want to use llvm/clang to generate ARM assembly code and arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2 to be assembler. Unfortunately, I got some

Simplescalar is not compatible with llvm because the binutils simplescalar is based on is ancient. Jim On Sep 26, 2012, at 12:21 AM, 陳奕梅 <ymchen at sslab.cs.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > Dear all > > I use arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2, because the code generated by version 3.X and 4.X can not run on SimpleScalar. > So I use the arm-linux-gcc 2.95.2 *only*, the version is recommended by

ARM backend emits different eabi build attributes based on the ISA variant the target supports or whether certain fast-math options are passed on the command line. For example, these are the attributes that have different values depending on whether -ffast-math is passed to clang: $ clang -target armv7-linux-gnueabi -ffast-math (with -ffast-math) .eabi_attribute 20, 2 @ Tag_ABI_FP_denormal

Bill, ooops, yes, I described the meaning of "throw(A)" backwards, but I still think my example shows why you cannot merge LandingpadInst while inlining because multiple filter-lists on a LandingpadInst don't make sense. Perhaps I'm reading your original spec wrong, perhaps I'm mis-reading Duncan's emails, but I read them to mean that your syntax supports

Dear all, I don't get how llvm handles functions with __attribute__((noreturn)). It seems that LR register is backed up on the stack whilst it will never be used to return from a 'noreturn' function. I have this problem with a home-made backend but it seems that ARM flavour of clang has same behaviour. By the way, SP is also saved, I don't understand why. Is there a syntax error

2010/1/22 James Williams <junk at giantblob.com> > > > 2010/1/22 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > > Hi James, >> >> >> I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply >>> invokes _Unwind_RaiseException with a single clean-up landing pad. However. >>> when I run it my personality function is not getting

Hi, I do not get your result. Do I miss something? $COMP_ROOT/clang++ --target=arm-arm-eabihf -march=armv8.2a+fp16 arm.cpp -S -o - -O3 .text .syntax unified .eabi_attribute 67, "2.09" .eabi_attribute 6, 14 .eabi_attribute 7, 65 .eabi_attribute 8, 1 .eabi_attribute 9, 2 .fpu crypto-neon-fp-armv8 .eabi_attribute 12, 4

2010/1/22 Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> > Hi James, > > > I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply >> invokes _Unwind_RaiseException with a single clean-up landing pad. However. >> when I run it my personality function is not getting called - >> _Unwind_RaiseException simply returns apparently doing nothing. Looking at

Hi James, > I've been trying to get a minimal test function to work, which simply > invokes _Unwind_RaiseException with a single clean-up landing pad. > However. when I run it my personality function is not getting called - > _Unwind_RaiseException simply returns apparently doing nothing. Looking > at the x86-64 assembly output from llc, I can see this is happening >

Hiya I am trying to compile a test case with latest LLVM 3.3 release using integrated assembler. I have looked through previous mailing discussion on this subject and it appears that perhaps by now the appropriate changes are checked-in however my test case is failing. Maybe I am missing something and not specifying appropriate options on the commandline. My setup: Host operating System: Ubuntu

Hi, I'm investigating the size of Clang's generated binaries relative to GCC, when targeting Android, and I've noticed that Clang's exception tables are much larger -- the .ARM.extab section is about 2.5 times as large in two examples. I noticed a couple of differences between Clang and GCC: 1. *ULEB128 encoding.* In the call site table, GCC encodes offsets using a ULEB128

I'm trying to find a way to emulate a floating point instruction, say a floating point add. My understanding is that in order to do that I need to execute setOperationAction(ISD::FADD, (MVT::f32, Expand); setOperationAction(ISD::FADD, (MVT::f64, Expand); in MyTargetISelLowering.cpp, MyTargetLowering::MyTargetLowering(...). However for some reason I'm still seeing a floating point add in

Hi andrea, R11 treated as frame pointer at arm backend , which is fixed again . Thanks Umesh On Tuesday, October 15, 2013, Andrea Mucignat <andrea at nestlabs.com> wrote: > Umesh, > Makes some sort of sense to me, OTOH: > If instead of choosing r11 as a "dummy" to align the stack we had chosen some other register in the range r0-r7 then we could have emitted the PUSH