similar to: [LLVMdev] [BUG] Support missing macro arguments

Hi, According to the GNU as documentation [1], .cfi_startproc simple is a valid directive. Unfortunately, LLVM complains with: error: invalid instruction mnemonic 'simple' I happened to notice it while attempting to compile linux.git with clang: see arch/x86/ia32/ia32entry.S:75. [1]: http://sourceware.org/binutils/docs-2.22/as/Pseudo-Ops.html#Pseudo-Ops Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since > Intel 386. GNU as supports them fine. Unfortunately, LLVM does not > support them, and barfs with: > > error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix > > Fix this problem by disambiguating it

Hi, I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures where the w/l variant is unavailable? LLVM must support those architectures, no? Thanks.

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I happened to notice that linux.git uses plenty of btr and bts > instructions (not btrl, btrw, btsl, btsw). For examples, see > arch/x86/include/asm/bitops.h. LLVM barfs on these due to ambiguity, > while GNU as is fine with them. Surely, there must be architectures > where

Also, please elaborate on why this is a good change. Because gas accepts it isn’t sufficient reason in and of itself. -Jim On Jul 10, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> The instructions btr and bts are perfectly valid, and have existed since

Really sorry I missed this. Just found it looking for something else in my inbox. I think we should support this but * We should still err on other identifiers ".cfi_startport bar" is invalid. * If I read the gas documentation correctly, the effect of "simple" is to skip the initial cfi instructions. We should test if that is the case and implement it too. Accepting and

The instruction mnemonics for the immediate forms of bit-test instructions including bt, btr and bts, btc do not work. llvm-mc barfs with: error: ambiguous instructions require an explicit suffix This is highly user-unfriendly, since we can easily infer what the user meant by inspecting $imm and translating the instruction appropriately. Do it exactly as the Intel manual describes. Note that

On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Keno Fischer <kfischer at college.harvard.edu> wrote: > This might be related to GOT relocations. I rewrote that part of > RuntimeDyldELFbecause I was seeing this issue. Have you tried trunk? > I didn't notice that you were running 3.5 the first time I read this. Keno's diagnosis is very likely to be correct. You should try trunk if

Hi Dale, I don't think that Keno's rewrite is applicable for a bug fix release. We have, in the last year, moved to having some dot releases for our older releases, but these are definitely bug fix only and low risk as we don't want to break anything new. The release documentation is located here: http://llvm.org/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.html for future reference. There's no

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

So it appears that we get about half the crashes with the large code model. The rest are crashing in the same way. It could either mean that large code model still takes that crashing codepath and that the number of crashes only went down by chance, or that in one place in the flow, large code model is not matched to mean ELF::R_X86_64_PC64. I'm digging into this issue further, but any hints

Hi Dmitri, Dmitri Gribenko wrote: > On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra > <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >> Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a clean >> worktree after a default build. > > Hi, > > These gitignore lists require maintenance. Is is possible to express > the same set of filenames as patterns like

Provide a full-fledged example of working variable arguments on X86_64, since it's easily the most popular platform. Cc: Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> --- docs/LangRef.rst | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/LangRef.rst

Philip Reames wrote: > T.M.K., there's no direct way to test it. There is. See the 'unittests/' directory which contains the C++ unit tests. See unittests/IR/UserTest.cpp for an example that builds up IR from a .ll-in-a-C-string then queries C++ API operations on it. Nick You have to construct a > transformation which happens with the information you added and not >

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Eli Friedman wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra via llvm-dev > > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> We were just debugging a sporadic crash the other day, when we noticed > >> that RIP-relative addressing was being used in a

Eli Friedman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 6:13 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> We were just debugging a sporadic crash the other day, when we noticed >> that RIP-relative addressing was being used in a JumpTable, even when >> code and data were well over 4G apart. This is confusing, because we >> picked

Hi, We are seeing sporadic crashes since we migrated to MCJIT on Win64. The same tests pass without issues on Mac64 and Linux64. The issue is this assertion failure in RuntimeDyldELF.c: RealOffset <= INT32_MAX && RealOffset >= INT32_MIN I haven't managed to successfully catch the failure in Visual to try and debug it. Any tips on how to make progress? Oh, and we're on

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a clean > worktree after a default build. Hi, These gitignore lists require maintenance. Is is possible to express the same set of filenames as patterns like '*.inc' in the root gitigrore file, so that adding/removing a new

On Nov 13, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dmitri, > > Dmitri Gribenko wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 6:02 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra >> <artagnon at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Add several .gitignore rules to various directories to ensure a clean >>> worktree after a default build. >> >> Hi,

Hi, These warnings are included by default with -Wall in GCC 4.6 [1], and LLVM should support them instead of throwing -Wunknown-warning-option. [1]: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.6/porting_to.html Thanks.