similar to: [LLVMdev] Problem to run SPEC2006

Actually I am trying to run SPEC2006 through the Makefiles provided with LLVM Test Suite, so I think it should work properly... On 18 February 2013 15:49, Adhemerval Zanella <azanella at linux.vnet.ibm.com>wrote: > I can't really tell what is happening based on this output, but 'make' is > not the right way > to build SPECcpu2006 components. You need to do either by

I can't really tell what is happening based on this output, but 'make' is not the right way to build SPECcpu2006 components. You need to do either by using the supplied 'runspec' command with '-build' action directive or to issue the 'specmake' (which is a make adjusted by spec.org) on the build component folder. I can build 433.milc on PPC64 with clang without

Dear LLVMers, I am implementing a Function Pass and I would like to use analysis obtained from a Module Pass. Some extracts of my code look like that: struct MyPass : public FunctionPass { static char ID; MyPass() : FunctionPass(ID) { PADriver &PD = getAnalysis<AModulePass>(); ... virtual void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const{

Dear LLVMers, I am trying to measure the performance overhead (if any) of the canaries that clang inserts in the code. I would like to do this automatically, using the LLVM test infra-structure. However, I am not sure if that is possible. Could someone tell me which flags in the TEST.nightly.Makefile script, (or any other script) I must change to have this done? Usually I insert canaries with

Hello, all- I am having trouble getting the test suite set up with my download of SPEC2006. I downloaded and installed llvm-gcc, checked out a copy of test-suite in llvm-2.8/projects, and then configured and made llvm: ./configure --enable-debug-runtime --disable-optimized --enable-spec2006=/home/jamiemmt/speccpu2006 --with-externals=/home/jamiemmt make The configure script found the SPEC

On Linux, when I run "make TEST=ipodbgopt" in MultiSource/Applications/sqlite3 I get: make[4]: Entering directory `/home/foad/llvm/poo/build/test-suite/MultiSource/Applications/sqlite3' Compiling shell.c to Output/shell.bc /home/foad/svn/llvm-project/test-suite/trunk/MultiSource/Applications/sqlite3/speedtest.tcl make[4]: execvp:

Reid Spencer wrote: > Have you modified the makefile in any way? Note that sse.expantfft.bc should be sse.expandfft.bc no, did'nt change it. the typo before seems to be an error while copying from the terminal. i've cleaned everything and tried again. this is the messsage: [brandner:/localtmp/brandner/dev/llvm-test:529] make -j1 TEST=nightly 2>&1 | tee report.nightly.raw.out

Hello to all LLVM Developers. Given a object from a LiveInterval class, is there any way to know if this Live Interval is part or is inside a loop? Att -- Natanael Ramos Membro do corpo discente de Ciência da Computação pelo Instituto Federal de Minas Gerais - Campus Formiga -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, Over the past six months, a MemorySSA-backed DSE implementation has been added to LLVM and it now covers almost all cases the existing DSE implementation does, plus adding a major new capability: eliminating stores across basic blocks. Thanks everyone involved with reviews, testing & patches! I think now would be a good time to start working towards switching to use MemorySSA-backed DSE

Hi Chandler, Thanks for fixing the problem with the insertps mask. Generally the new shuffle lowering looks promising, however there are some cases where the codegen is now worse causing runtime performance regressions in some of our internal codebase. You have already mentioned how the new shuffle lowering is missing some features; for example, you explicitly said that we currently lack of

Dear Duncan, thank you very much. I have been able to use it now, via the following command line: clang -emit-llvm -c -fstack-protector canary.c -o canary.bc llc -print-before=stack-protector -print-after=stack-protector -o canary.s < canary.bc Thank you again, Izabela Maffra. On 26 January 2013 15:55, <llvmdev-request at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Send LLVMdev mailing

Thanks Matthias I can also use the method intervalIsInOneMBB() from LiveIntervals class to relate a LiveInterval to a MachineBasicBlock, right? Em 04/09/2015 2:26 PM, "Matthias Braun" <mbraun at apple.com> escreveu: > There is no direct support for this, but you can use > LiveIntervalAnalysis::getMBBStartIndex()/getMBBEndIndex()/getMBBFromIndex() > to relate the

Hello to all LLVM Developers. The LLVM IR is in strict SSA form (i.e. every variable is defined before it is used along every path from the entry to exit point)? According to the documentation, currently the LLVM IR is in the SSA form, but I don't see additional information about *strict* SSA form. The strict SSA form provide opportunities of optimization in register allocation, because is

On Saturday 15 September 2007, Tanya Lattner wrote: > 2) Download llvm-2.1, llvm-test-2.1, and the llvm-gcc4.0 source. > Compile everything. Run "make check" and the full llvm-test suite > (make TEST=nightly report). I tried to do this, but ran into trouble. LLVM itself compiled fine. GCC compilation is broken when Java support is enabled. I can file a detailed bug report

Good Afternoon. I am a Computer Science undergraduate student in Brazil and as completion of course work, I am developing an register allocator, using the infrastructure of the LLVM. To accomplish this task, I have based my implementation in allocators already implemented in LLVM. But a question came to me while I was researching in books and articles of compiler theory and own documentation of

If you are interesting to play around X32, you may refer to http://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/x32 to bootstrap a local environment on Linux. Yours - Michael -----Original Message----- From: cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:cfe-commits-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Liao, Michael Sent: Monday, June 04, 2012 5:09 PM To: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu; cfe-commits at cs.uiuc.edu

I'm working on my project for completion undergraduate courses, consisting of an experimental analysis of registers allocation algorithms. For this task, I am using the set of tools from the LLVM project. However, I have read the documentation of the LLVM project and not yet found a way to put the pieces of the puzzle together. So far I know: - As passes work as engage them to LLVM and

Hello to all LLVM developers. I'm developing a register allocator using LLVM, my allocator has a local search phase: given a solution (assignment of virtual registers to physical registers or memory) generated in the first phase of the algorithm, some movements are applied to this solution in order to find a better solution. To apply such movements, I need to unassign a virtual register from

Currently, loop fully unroller shares the same default threshold as loop dynamic unroller and partial unroller. This seems conservative because unlike dynamic/partial unrolling, fully unrolling will not affect LSD/ICache performance. In https://reviews.llvm.org/D28368, I proposed to double the threshold for loop fully unroller. This will change the codegen of several SPECCPU benchmarks: Code

On 12 February 2013 16:56, Sebastien DELDON-GNB <sebastien.deldon at st.com>wrote: > If this helps taking your decision, there are at least two benchmarks for > which disabling vmlx-forwarding makes a significant difference. > I think Evan's worry was to base this decision on visible and comprehensible benchmarks, such as the test-suite. If I get lucky I may be able to run