similar to: [LLVMdev] Deprecating and removing the MBlaze backend

Chandler brought up removing it back in February but Rogelio Serrano said he could maintain it and Jeff Fifield from Xilinx was supposed to check if someone could help. If no one has stepped up in the past 5 months, then I don't see an issue with removing it. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] > On

Hi, I just saw this thread. I work on llvm at Xilinx but I do not work on microblaze. I will check to see if there is any interest here at Xilinx to contribute resources to the maintenance of this backend. Thanks, Jeff On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:38 PM, Rogelio Serrano <rogelio.serrano at gmail.com>wrote: > > On Feb 6, 2013 4:52 AM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at

Hi jeff! Any news? On Feb 9, 2013 1:53 AM, "Jeff Fifield" <fifield at mtnhigh.net> wrote: > Hi, > > I just saw this thread. I work on llvm at Xilinx but I do not work on > microblaze. > > I will check to see if there is any interest here at Xilinx to contribute > resources to the maintenance of this backend. > > Thanks, > Jeff > > > > On

On Jul 24, 2013, at 2:10 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > Doesn't seem to get a lot of love since most of the commits in the > last 3 years have been maintenance. I guess it doesn't take a whole > lot of maintenance either, but... > > cc'ing Wesley since he seems to be the last guy to commit to it. I say that we drop it. If someone steps up

The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact all emails to him are bouncing. I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks are having to keep it up to date when changing shared parts of the backend with no help. -Chandler

Will this poking include converting the JIT to use the MC framework? I've added an MC based asm parser, disassembler, and code emitter recently to the MBlaze backend and it would be nice to get JIT support automatically :) -- Wesley Peck On Nov 12, 2010, at 7:42 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > Hi, > > I am starting to poke at the LLVM JIT, which seems to be in need of some TLC. >

On Feb 6, 2013 4:52 AM, "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > > The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact all emails to him are bouncing. > > I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step forward as a maintainer. Currently, folks

Recently I have been getting a build failure while trying to link lli when performing a cmake based build. The failure is: Undefined symbols: "_LLVMLinkInMCJIT", referenced from: (anonymous namespace)::ForceMCJITLinking::ForceMCJITLinking()in lli.cpp.o ld: symbol(s) not found collect2: ld returned 1 exit status make[2]: *** [bin/lli] Error 1 I have fixed this with the

On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:01 PM, Wesley Peck <peckw at wesleypeck.com> wrote: > Will this poking include converting the JIT to use the MC framework? That is the motivation for me poking at things, yes. > I've added an MC based asm parser, disassembler, and code emitter recently to the MBlaze backend and it would be nice to get JIT support automatically :) I agree, that would be

Just for informational purposes on a smaller system (Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro): make none X86.td X86InstrInfo.cpp real 11.568 217% 76.283 177% 34.435 169% user 7.726 141% 70.659 100% 25.608 116% sys 3.234 111% 3.992 100% 6.438 104% make -j2 none X86.td X86InstrInfo.cpp real 7.7346 145% 43.138 100% 25.77 127% user 7.6072 139% 70.414 100% 26.589 121% sys 3.2492 111% 3.984 100%

Hello John. John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu> writes: [snip] > I did not use CMake but the standard autoconf + Makefile build. > > Not sure if this helps, but here it is, for what it's worth. Very interesting, thanks! CMake introduces more parallelism and it would be great to see how much impact it makes. If you can, please run the cmake build with -j32, just to

I think you should wait until it becomes a problem. Xilink is actively hiring for LLVM people so maybe it will get some use again soon. I get at least one email a day from their head hunters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBlaze On 02/05/2013 01:02 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com >

Wesley Peck <peckw at wesleypeck.com> writes: [snip] > I have fixed this with the attached patch. It anybody else getting > this error? Should I commit the patch? Yes, please. [snip]

I have been working on a LLVM backend for the MicroBlaze (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroBlaze ) soft-processor. At this point the backend is partially functional but by no means complete. I was curious as to wether the LLVM developers would prefer to merge the backend into the main tree now and then accept patches on the backend until it was fully functional or if they prefer to wait

> > The MBlaze backend seems to be essentially unmaintained since 2011. The > maintainer (Wesley Peck who is BCC'ed) seems to have vanished, and in fact > all emails to him are bouncing. > I propose to remove the MBlaze backend on Friday if none step forward as a > maintainer. Currently, folks are having to keep it up to date when changing > shared parts of the backend

I've been working on ELF object support for the MicroBlaze backend and found that ELFObjectWriter assumes the x86/x86-64 architecture. Attached is a patch that makes the 16-bit e_machine value in the ELF header configurable by the target backend. Right now the target backend simply passes the 16-bit value that it would like to use in the ELF header. I have considered a second approach where

On Nov 19, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > The rest is already in Target, so LGTM :-). Move the > MBlazeELFObjectWriter code to ELFObjectWritter.ccp and lets go from > there. Will do. Again, thank for taking a look at this. -- Wesley Peck University of Kansas SLDG Laboratory

Is it kosher to include vim mode line comments inside of LLVM source files? I would like to do this inside of the MicroBlaze backend to ensure that tabs are expanded into exactly two spaces. I see that right now the following files have these vim mode line comments: include/llvm/ADT/SetVector.h lib/Archive/ArchiveInternals.h lib/Linker/LinkModules.cpp lib/Transforms/IPO/DeadTypeElimination.cpp

On Jan 7, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Venkatraman Govindaraju wrote: > When I run LLC with option "-O0 -march=sparc" on following testcase, > fast register allocator crashes with "UNREACHABLE executed" error. LLC > generates code successfully with other standard register allocators > available. I haven't investigated the Sparc backend specifically but... My guess is

Hello, When I run LLC with option "-O0 -march=sparc" on following testcase, fast register allocator crashes with "UNREACHABLE executed" error. LLC generates code successfully with other standard register allocators available. $ cat call.ll define void @test() nounwind { entry: %0 = tail call i32 (...)* @foo() nounwind tail call void (...)* @bar() nounwind ret void }