similar to: [LLVMdev] workflow for linking clang

On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > the good news is that (thanks to Simon) the clang driver is working so > well for Mips now that we are more or less switching away from using llc > during development for all our various host/target configurations. > > the bad news is that we have make clang all the time and it is really slow > to

On 08/16/2013 02:13 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:01 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com > <mailto:rkotler at mips.com>> wrote: > > the good news is that (thanks to Simon) the clang driver is > working so well for Mips now that we are more or less switching > away from using llc during development for all our various >

On 08/16/2013 02:23 PM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 16 Aug 2013, at 22:01, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> we used to be able to just make in the lib/target/Mips and then in llc and it was really fast. >> >> part of it is probably that we have all this debug information that we don't need because none of use are working on clang itself (well, almost

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 16 Aug 2013, at 22:01, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > we used to be able to just make in the lib/target/Mips and then in llc and it was really fast. > > part of it is probably that we have all this debug information that we don't need because none of use are working on clang itself (well, almost never). > > ideas? I build a dynamically-linked version of

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

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 02/24/2014 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.

In the following example with gcc style builtins, in once case llvm.powi.f64 is emitted and in the other just a call to library function powf. ~/llvm/build/Debug+Asserts/bin/clang -S -emit-llvm pow1.c Why is that? Is there a way to force the call to an llvm style builtin? Tia. Reed -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pow1.c Type: text/x-csrc

On 06/04/2012 05:17 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Can we get back to the substantive discussion about your ideas for > lessening the technical debt? The lessening requires enlisting people that are willing to do this as opposed to doing fun science like cool optimization. I,for example, find the documentaiton, cleanup and refactoring to be interesting so I don't feel cheated to work on

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.

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

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,

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

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. You can find scripts on the internet when you google of people adding disable-valgrind to configure. I can probably implement disable-valgrind in configure.ac. Reed On 02/24/2014 04:33

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

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

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

Is there a simple way to just change the opcode of a machine instruction. I have a lot of long/short pairs where when I know the offset, i can replace the long version with the short version. Tia. REed

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: