similar to: [LLVMdev] Mips backend 3.2 va_arg possible bug

Could you file a bug? On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 2:47 AM, Stavropoulos Nikos < n.stavropoulos at think-silicon.com> wrote: > i have this code > > typedef long long L; > typedef integer I; > void test2(auto L p0, auto L p1, auto L p2, auto L p4, ...) > { > va_list select; > > va_start (select, p4); > > report( va_arg(select,L) ); > report(

Does it make a difference if you give the "-target" option to clang? $ clang -target mips-linux-gnu ch8_3.cpp -o ch8_3.bc -emit-llvm -c The .s file generated this way looks quite different from the one in your email. On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > I didn't have Mips board. I compile as the commands and check the asm >

I didn't have Mips board. I compile as the commands and check the asm output as below. 1. Question: The distance of caller arg[4] and arg[5] is 4 bytes. But the the callee get every arg[] by 8 bytes offset (arg_ptr1+8 or arg_ptr2+8). I assume the #BB#4 and #BB#5 are the arg_ptr which is the pointer to access the stack arguments. 2. Question: Stack memory 28($sp) has no initial value. If

Hello everyone. I use this command clang -emit-llvm hello.c -c -o hello.bc llc hello.bc -march=mipsel -relocation-model=static -o hello.s to produce this MIPS code: .section .mdebug.abi32 .previous .file "hello.bc" .text .globl main .align 2 .type main, at function .set nomips16 # @main .ent main main: .cfi_startproc .frame $sp,32,$ra .mask 0x80000000,-4 .fmask

Which part of the generated code do you think is not correct? Could you be more specific? I compiled this program with clang and ran it on a mips board. It returns the expected result (21). On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Jonathan <gamma_chen at yahoo.com.tw> wrote: > I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result. > It seems not correct. Is it my

I check the Mips backend for the following C code fragment compile result. It seems not correct. Is it my misunderstand or it's a bug. //ch8_3.cpp #include <stdarg.h> int sum_i(int amount, ...) { int i = 0; int val = 0; int sum = 0; va_list vl; va_start(vl, amount); for (i = 0; i < amount; i++) { val = va_arg(vl, int); sum += val; } va_end(vl);

Hi all, When compiling some programs using the Mips backend i'm getting this assert message on lib/CodeGen/LiveInterval.cpp:227: "Range is not entirely in interval!" I don't know yet if it's something that is missing on the backend code or why the range to be removed it outside the interval, does anyone have any clue? A more detailed output is attached. The program i tried

Hi everyone The c code is like below extern int function_0(int, int); int main(){ return function_0(8, 9); } I compile it as below llvm-gcc main.c -emit-llvm -c -O3 -o main.bc llc main.bc -relocation-model=static -march=mips -O0 -o main.s It seems no argument is provided to function_0 ... addiu $sp, $sp, -8 sw $ra, 0($sp) jal function_0

Hi, I am hoping that someone can help me figure out how to prevent the insertion of "memcpy" from the assembly source. My target is an instruction set simulator that doesn't support this. Thank you for your valuable time. Wolf *Here are my compile commands:* $ clang -emit-llvm -fno-builtin -o3 --target=mips -S matrix_float.c -o vl_matrix_float.ll $ llc vl_matrix_float.ll *IR

I'm just passing this patch on to the list as I know Brian is busy and I had proded him to file the bug report. http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=14721 "binutils on OpenBSD is quite old, which causes the build on mips64el to fail on MipsJITInfo.cpp - it complains of illegal operands. The attachment patches it so that it will build. All the patch does is replace the register aliases

Hi Reed, Still catching up on email, so hope this isn't already covered... reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: > I have a strange issue that I encountered with mips16 hard float. > > Part of mips16 hard float is to emit calls to runtime routines with the > same signature as usual soft float routines, except that they are > implemented using mips32 code which uses

Hi, > Can you post the llc command line you're using? Can you post an LLVM IR > file that causes this behavior? yes: ${LLVM_PATH}/bin/llc -o helloworld.s -march=nvptx helloworld.ll where LLVM_PATH my local installation path for LLVM. Also attaching helloworld.c: #include <stdio.h> int main(void) { printf("Hello World!\n"); return 0; } and helloworld.ll:

I was told that I can use clang + llvm to get MIPS instructions on my x86 machine. I did following command and got error below. Does anyone have any idea ? or can someone suggest me how to get MIPS instructions easily from llvm. clang -ccc-host-triple mips-unknown-linux -ccc-clang-archs mips helllo.c clang: warning: unknown platform, assuming -mfloat-abi=soft '+' is not a recognized

Here's an example using the gcc toolchain for embedded 32 bit RISC-V (my HiFive1 board): #include <stdio.h> int foo(int i){ if (i < 100){ printf("%d\n", i); } return i; } int main(){ foo(10); return 0; } After compiling to a .o with -O2 -march=RV32IC we get (just looking at foo) 00000000 <foo>: 0: 1141 addi sp,sp,-16

By the way, since this is an optional code relaxation, we can think about it later. The first thing I would do is to add RISC-V support to lld without code shrinking relaxations, which I believe is doable by at most a few hundreds lines of code. On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev < >

Alright, couple of points here: 1. Address space 0 is invalid for global variables. This is causing a crash in llc where we use llvm_unreachable() on this case. This is most likely why you're seeing llc run forever. The fix for this is to use address space 1 for globals, which puts them into PTX global memory. On our side, we should provide a meaningful error message in this case. 2. The

Hi, I noticed that klibc started crashing on 64-bit MIPS and in my quest to fix the bug I got a bit carried away and fixed a few other things as well. Here are various miscellaneous MIPS patches, although the first patch is the important one. Thanks, James *** BLURB HERE *** James Cowgill (5): mips64: compile with -mno-abicalls mips: use -Ttext-segment when linking shared library

I've been working on supporting ARM/Thumb interworking thunks in LLD and have encountered a limitation that I think it is worth bringing up in a wider context. This is all LLD specific, apologies if I've abused llvm-dev here. TL;DR summary: - Thunks in lld may not work if they are added to InputSections that have already been scanned. - There is a short term fix, but in the longer term I

Commit-ID: 59f3f33338f371b3a30163406fbb5fe323503939 Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/?p=libs/klibc/klibc.git;a=commit;h=59f3f33338f371b3a30163406fbb5fe323503939 Author: James Cowgill <james.cowgill at mips.com> AuthorDate: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 08:33:02 -0800 Committer: Ben Hutchings <ben at decadent.org.uk> CommitDate: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 03:08:04 +0000 [klibc] mips/mips64: simplify

Hi Jim, Yes, the relocation entries have to be reordered so that the got16/lo16 or hi16/lo16 pairs appear consecutively in the relocation table. As a result, relocations can appear in a different order than the instructions that they're for. For example, in this code, the post-RA scheduler inserts an instruction with relocation %got(body_ok) between %got(scope_top) and %lo(scope_top). $ cat