similar to: [LLVMdev] Question about anti-dependence breaker

----- Original Message ----- > > > > hi, > I have few question about breaking anti-dependence of postRAScheduler > in LLVM. > when I use command line "clang -target arm -mcpu=cortex-a8 -O2 > -integrated-as -c test.c -o test.o" > and get objdump file as follows: > ldr r1, [r0,#16]----(1 > str r1, [r0,#32]----(2 > ldr r1, [r0,#12]----(3 > str r1,

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > > See my earlier reply [1] (but also, your WRC Linux example looks more > > > > like a

Hi, Its that time of the year again. Here is the results on openSUSE 13.1 PPC64. Total of 3 failures which seems to be due the same problem (the value in brackets is the time counter from the build system): [ 3468s] /home/abuild/rpmbuild/BUILD/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/ppc32-vacopy.ll:21:10: error: expected string not found in input [ 3468s] ; CHECK: lwz [[REG3:[0-9]+]], {{.*}} [ 3468s]

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:24:32AM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:36:50PM -0800, Leonid Yegoshin wrote: > > > > On 01/14/2016 01:29 PM, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > > > >

Hi I am trying to modify the llc in that way: subf 3, 5, 3 subf 3, 5, 3 stw 3, 44(1) stw 3, 44(1) # InlineAsm Start --> isync

I've been playing around with llvm lately and I was wondering something about the bitcode instructions for basic arithmetic. Is there any plan to provide instructions that perform widening multiply, or add with carry? It might be written as: mulw i32 %lhs %rhs -> i64 ; widening multiply addw i32 %lhs %rhs -> i33 ; widening add addc i32 %lhs, i32 %rhs, i1 %c -> i33 ; add with carry

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:16:09PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 10:03:22PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > PPC Overlapping Group-B sets version 4 > > > > "" > > > > (*

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > >

On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 04:42:43PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 01:58:53PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > >

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 01:29:13PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > So smp_mb() provides transitivity, as do pairs of smp_store_release() > and smp_read_acquire(), But they provide different grades of transitivity, which is where all the confusion lays. smp_mb() is strongly/globally transitive, all CPUs will agree on the order. Whereas the RCpc release+acquire is weakly so, only the two

İsmai, Thanks for testing these. Can you please file a bug report (and CC me on it), and attach the full output of these failing tests? (When the test fails you should see the full command -- rerun it without piping the output into FileCheck). Thanks again, Hal ----- Original Message ----- > From: "İsmail Dönmez" <ismail at donmez.ws> > To: "LLVM Developers Mailing

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they >

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:27:14PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:46:12AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And the stuff we're confused about is how best to express the difference > > > and guarantees of these two forms of transitivity and how exactly they >

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:10:10PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 05:06:46PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 02:41:34PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 11:28:45AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:54:01AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On

On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 19:58 -0500, Peter Bergner wrote: > On Tue, 2012-05-01 at 17:47 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > > By default it should build for > > whatever the current host is (no special flags required). To > > specifically build for something else, use: > > -ccc-host-triple powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu > > or > > -ccc-host-triple