similar to: [LLVMdev] arm machine code with clang 3.2

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 01:23:03PM +0000, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 25 March 2016 at 04:11, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > As I understand it, the fundamental property being addresses here is: Are > > the semantics of scalar FP math the same as vector FP math? TTI seems like > > a good place to expose that information. If the semantics are indeed

2) For lag in execution time due to floating point operations, it was clearly observed that gcc used floating point instruction FSQRT, where as clang seemed to use emulated function (?) BL SQRT. Note that we used the following flags for both clang as well as gcc compilation. -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mtune=cortex-a8 Infact, i was surprised to see that even when

On 25 March 2016 at 04:11, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > As I understand it, the fundamental property being addresses here is: Are the semantics of scalar FP math the same as vector FP math? TTI seems like a good place to expose that information. If the semantics are indeed different, then the vectorizer would require fast-math flags in order to vectorize FP operations

Hi Kun Ling & Bergstrom, Thanks a lot for your earlier responses. We did use the benchmarks in llvm testsuite for comparing execution time taken by clang & gcc. It appears that clang is slower than gcc for cases where floating point operations are involved and recursive calls are involved (note that pic/pie was enabled for both gcc as well as clang ). 1) For lag in execution time due to

Hi, I wonder what PRE algorithm is used for the GVN.cpp in LLVM. Any reference will be appreciated. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140930/3d7f74e3/attachment.html>

Hi All, Could anyone point me to some good benchmarking tools to measure the runtime performance of clang compiled C++ applications. Thanks ! - Jyoti -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20131003/3cc029f1/attachment.html>

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

I've been playing around with using LLVM on one of our projects, which runs on an arm1176jzf-s processor. When compiling for Thumb, a couple of the generated assembly files end up with a 'ror.w' instruction, which is a Thumb2 instruction. Since arm1176jzf-s doesn't support Thumb2, the assembler then turns around and barfs on it. I don't have any experience with this

> 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?

My understanding is that whether a gcc toolchain defaults to ARM or Thumb is a configuration time decision by whomever builds the toolchain. The linaro arm-linux-gnueabihf toolchain I have defaults to -mthumb and that doesn't vary for -mcpu or any other command line option. I haven't got a gcc to hand that defaults to -marm so that I can test whether -mcpu=cortex-m3 will change that to

Hi all, LLVM CodeGen and Tools team at Apple is looking for exceptional compiler engineers. This is a great opportunity to work with many of the leaders in the LLVM community. If you are interested in this position, please send your resume / CV and relevant information to evan.cheng at apple.com Thanks, Evan Job description The Apple compiler team is seeking an engineer who is strongly

On Thu, 15 Nov 2018 at 14:18, Sjoerd Meijer <Sjoerd.Meijer at arm.com> wrote: > > Ahhh, typo in my previous mail: > > > > when I noticed that -Os gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > > I wanted to say: > > > when I noticed that "GCC -Os" gives me Thumb on Cortex-A{8,9,17} > > Yes. Just to clarify my response. That particular linaro

Hi Matt, You're absolutely right, that pattern should definitely have an "only-in-Thumb2" predicate attached. Do you have commit access? Also, if you have a reduced test case, that would be awesome, but the patch is correct as-is even if not. -Jim On Jul 2, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Matt Fischer <mattfischer84 at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been playing around with using LLVM

Yes, exactly this: > Sure, none of the cortex-m cores support ARM mode. Try cortex-a{5,7,8,9,15,53} etc and you'll see it works. Sorry for being a bit vague and unclear here: yes, I should have said cortex-a{5,7,8,9,15,53}. I was just having a play with this native compiler: gcc-5 (Ubuntu/Linaro 5.4.0-6ubuntu1~16.04.10) 5.4.0 20160609 when I noticed that -Os gives me Thumb on

I went ahead and committed it, along with a basic test case, in svn r159538. On Jul 2, 2012, at 9:34 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Matt, > > You're absolutely right, that pattern should definitely have an "only-in-Thumb2" predicate attached. > > Do you have commit access? Also, if you have a reduced test case, that would be awesome, but

On 3 July 2011 21:32, Karel Gardas <karel.gardas at centrum.cz> wrote: > please see http://ghcarm.wordpress.com/2011/07/03/llvm-on-arm-testing/ > > Is there anything other I might do for you to get those regressions fixed? Hi Karel, This is great! I can see there's only a handful of errors. All JIT errors seem to be the same (MC). All O2 errors, too (MIPS). The select.ll

Hi list, I want to use LLVM to compile the C code to arm. Host: Mac OS X 10.10 Target: Pandaboard, armv7l, ubuntu I found some useful information but not worked yet. I tried like this: $ clang -fomit-frame-pointer -ggdb -emit-llvm --target=armv7l-unknown-linux-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a9 —mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=softfp --sysroot=/... test.c -c -o test.bc --> clang-3.5: error: no such file

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 4:13 AM, 陳韋任 <chenwj at iis.sinica.edu.tw> wrote: > 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

> Chandler’s complex arithmetic changes are also in the range: r219557 in clang. We saw it change the code in mandel-2 significantly. mandel-2 is broken on hard FP ABI systems, btw. The reason is simply: we're emitting a call to __muldc3 with AAPCS VFP calling convention, however, the function expects softfp (AAPCS) calling conv and reads garbage from GP registers. I'm working on fix.

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