similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC/PATCH][2/4] New SystemZ backend: LLVM testsuite changes

Hello, this set of patches adds SystemZ support to base LLVM. This is split up into three patches just to simplify review; they should be committed as a single change if approved. The first patch adds SystemZ support to the configure logic and support for the systemz Triple. This ought to be straightfoward. The second patch adds changes to LLVM common code required to support the SystemZ ELF

Hello, this set of patches adds Clang support for SystemZ. The first patch adds a new common code feature that allows platform code to request minimum alignment of global symbols. The background for this is that on System Z, the most efficient way to load addresses of global symbol is the LOAD ADDRESS RELATIVE LONG (LARL) instruction. This instruction provides PC-relative addressing, but only

Hello, I'd like to propose the addition of a new SystemZ backend to the LLVM and Clang code base. We're interested in this for the same reason we've been interested in the PowerPC back-end recently: to enable packages in upcoming enterprise Linux distributions that need LLVM support (e.g. 3D desktop support via llvmpipe). Now, I understand that a SystemZ backend used to be part of

Richard Sandiford wrote: >I'd like to step down as code owner for the SystemZ port and nominate >Ulrich Weigand to take over. Sorry for not doing this sooner. I'd be happy to take over that role. Thanks for all your work on SystemZ, Richard! Bye, Ulrich

Hi Hal, I only just noticed that about a year ago, Jim removed CPU auto-detection for the X86 target: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071991.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140407/212676.html >Currently the X86 backend does CPU auto-detection and subtarget feature >detection when the TargetMachine is created if no explicit CPU was

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote on 23.03.2015 19:42:06: > > >Attached are draft patches that do this for X86. Similar but smaller > > >cleanups can also be done for SystemZ and PowerPC if it’s agreed > > >this is a good idea. > > > > However, this was then never implemented for SystemZ and PowerPC. > > Should we do so as well? > >

Hi Anton, On 01/30/2011 12:44 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello > >> I am trying to assemble the output of the SystemZ backend with the GNU >> binutils assembler (build with --target=s390x-linux). I get errors when >> assembling instructions with literals that are negatives. For example, >> the test case test/CodeGen/SystemZ/01-RetImm.ll gives errors: >

On 01/30/2011 02:09 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> I'd still like to know if anyone has sucessfully assembled SystemZ generated >> assembly language with a binutils assembler, and if so, how. > Almost all testsuite passed ~ 1.5 years ago (with clang + gas). I > doubt anyone tried to assembler anything else after that time. > Lots of things have changed in 1.5 years with

> I'd still like to know if anyone has sucessfully assembled SystemZ generated > assembly language with a binutils assembler, and if so, how. Almost all testsuite passed ~ 1.5 years ago (with clang + gas). I doubt anyone tried to assembler anything else after that time. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics, Saint Petersburg State University

What assembler are people using with the SystemZ backend? I am trying to assemble the output of the SystemZ backend with the GNU binutils assembler (build with --target=s390x-linux). I get errors when assembling instructions with literals that are negatives. For example, the test case test/CodeGen/SystemZ/01-RetImm.ll gives errors: $ s390x-as 01-RetImm.s 01-RetImm.s: Assembler messages:

Hello > I am trying to assemble the output of the SystemZ backend with the GNU > binutils assembler (build with --target=s390x-linux).  I get errors when > assembling instructions with literals that are negatives.  For example, > the test case test/CodeGen/SystemZ/01-RetImm.ll gives errors: There are different instruction sets for z/System. Basically, you have to provide proper -march

Hans Wennborg wrote: >Dear testers, > >8.0.0-rc4 was just tagged from the release_80 branch at r355690. I've tested the current branch on SystemZ without problems. I noticed I forgot to send a ReleaseNotes updates, sorry. If there's still time, here's a list of the major user-visible changes: (See attached file: systemz-releasenotes.diff) Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best

> I'd like to propose the addition of a new SystemZ backend to the LLVM and > Clang code base. We're interested in this for the same reason we've been > interested in the PowerPC back-end recently: to enable packages in upcoming > enterprise Linux distributions that need LLVM support (e.g. 3D desktop > support via llvmpipe). Cool! > - focus on feature completeness

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

Hi Andrew, sorry for the delay, I only now got some time to look into this a bit more. But I still have a number of questions of how to actually implement this in the back end. Looking at this bottom-up, starting with the behavior of the actual machine instructions, we have (at least on SystemZ) the following things to consider: A) Rounding mode Most FP arithmetic instructions use the

Oh, and other thing: Are you planning to attend the upcoming LLVM developer's meeting in Bristol? I thought it might be good idea to get all parties interested in this feature together in person, if we're at the same meeting anyway. So I was thinking of submitting a proposal for a BoF session on this topic ... Mit freundlichen Gruessen / Best Regards Ulrich Weigand -- Dr. Ulrich

Hi, Two days ago, the test suite started failing. Initially there were hundreds of failing tests; now only seven remain. They appear to be related to SystemZ. Here's the last failed test: ******************** FAIL: LLVM :: MC/Disassembler/SystemZ/unmapped.txt (11484 of 14435) ******************** TEST 'LLVM :: MC/Disassembler/SystemZ/unmapped.txt' FAILED ******************** Script:

Csaba Raduly <rcsaba at gmail.com> wrote: > error: no disassembler for target s390x--linux-gnu The SystemZ disassembler was only recently added. To process major changes to the source tree like the addition of a completely new component, it seems to be necessary to explicitly re-run configure (or sometimes even remove the build directory completely and start from scratch). I've

Hi All, I had some questions regarding the SystemZ implementation and missing instructions. I've been comparing the IBM z/Architecture Reference Summary (SA22-7871-08) to the output of "llvm-tblgen SystemZ.td -print-enums -class=Instruction" and noticed that there's 525 missing instructions. For example, if I look at instruction "M" (page 16) with opcode 0x5c (M

Many thanks! On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > LLVM: > > LLVM no longer attempts to automatically detect the > current host CPU when invoked natively. > > LLVM now supports all thread-local storage models on SystemZ. > (Previous releases would support only the local-exec TLS model.) > > LLVM now uses the POPCNT