similar to: [LLVMdev] running spec2006 with clang

I used the suite with clang 3.3 a few months ago. If I remember correctly, I ran into the same error seen here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036013.html Although it doesn't seem to be a problem with the frontend, adding -std=gnu89, as suggested, fixed everything for me. H. ----- Original Message ----- From: reed kotler Sent: 08/16/13 01:26 AM To: LLVM Developers

On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll have to force whatever default GCC has for it's C++ standard. Though, GCC 4.8 is getting very close to Clang's behaviour, so

On 08/15/2013 10:29 PM, Henrique Santos wrote: > I used the suite with clang 3.3 a few months ago. > If I remember correctly, I ran into the same error seen here: > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-November/036013.html > Although it doesn't seem to be a problem with the frontend, adding > -std=gnu89, as suggested, fixed everything for me. > H. -std=gnu89 is

On 08/16/2013 01:42 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com > <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote: > > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > > > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not > Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll > have to force

Does anyone know some simple c/c++ code or .ll code which will cause this ctlz pattern to be emitted? Tia. Reed

Are you looking for something other than calling __builtin_clz from c++ or calling @llvm.ctlz.* instrinsic from IR? I don't think we have anything that will auto converting a loop to ctlz or anything like that. We only seem to have a detection for popcount loops. On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 9:01 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Does anyone know some simple c/c++ code or

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >> >> I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac >> >> There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems >> like there used to be.

On 06/10/2014 05:51 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > Hi Reed > > You can do this on the instruction itself by telling it 2 operands > must be the same register. For example, from X86: > > let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in > defm INSERTPS : SS41I_insertf32<0x21, "insertps">; > > Thanks, Hi Pete, Sorry. I should have been more specific. I'm

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

Okay. Cool. So do you bootrstrap and verify as part of the usual testing? Do the nightly scripts do this? Reed On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Reed Kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 05:00 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:24 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

I used the A9 schedule as an example: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together. ________________________________________ From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM To: Micah Villmow

On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>>> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >>>> >>>> I did look at the autoconf input files

Hi Sean, Glad to hear there is clean up of tablegen going on. Just for the record, I don't know what you are referring to regarding some comment of mine at my talk about 10K LOC. I don't know how big tablegen is itself nor how much code has been written in it so I would not have ventured such a guess. The idea of totally replacing the tablegen language came up at the talk during the

FWIW, I'm putting together (hopefully to be done by the end of this weekend) a substantial refactoring of the TableGen backend API along with shiny new documentation (reStructuredText with sphinx) of all of TableGen, including documentation about how to write backends and---depending on how adventurous I get---a more detailed coverage of the syntax. Also, Reed, in your TableGen talk, IIRC,

Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. Reed On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed

Can we get back to the substantive discussion about your ideas for lessening the technical debt? On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. > > Reed > > > On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at

Reed, Couldn't you also use instruction scheduling classes and specify that the second instruction has a bypass from the first instruction? The scheduler should always schedule them together in that case. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of reed kotler > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >