similar to: [LLVMdev] [OT] ARMv8 (AArch64) server

On 10/24/13 03:25 PM, David Tweed wrote: > Hi, note this a personal comment. > > You can see from the lists that ARM has been sending patches for some of the > more "niche" instructions, encodings and intrinsic in the AArch64 ISA. So we > at ARM are certainly working on LLVM in the context of AArch64. Thanks David (I'm aware of this) My goal is to connect with other

On 8 February 2016 at 22:56, <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > Imho it's critical to get parallel programming working on ARMv8 ( even if it's crappy OMP) to start. Please enable it and I'll run the tests against our internal QA and we can informally handle testing / guarding against regressions. So, I got some dependency errors while building OpenMP on my AArch64 box:

On 6 February 2016 at 01:02, C Bergström <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I worked on the port of llvm-OpenMP-formally-known-as-Intel to Aarch64 > - can it be included there as well? (I'm not sure what's precisely > involved - I'm willing to do my best fixing any bugs which pop up - Hi Chris, That'd entail me enabling them for AArch64. I have to say, I've

Hi there, I am Software product developer at Robert Bosch, Germany. We are using armv8 64bit targets for our development. We have the need to do the cross compiling for our target on windows. I have compiled clang 5.0 from the vcs git. I have tried compiling the code with following options set: clang.exe -target armv8 -fslp-vectorize-aggressive -mfpu=neon -mfloat-abi=hard -c test.cpp As you

Hi, Right. I'm aware of that. But to Clang, "armv8-a" as an architecture is ARMv8/AArch32. Unless Clang has recently got a lot cleverer than it has been in the past. James On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 9:06:04 AM Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon at linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 09:07, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> > wrote: > > Hi Renato,

Hi Renato, Are you sure? Armv8-a is aarch32, not aarch64. Something smells fishy there. Cheers, James On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 at 08:03, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 December 2014 at 20:29, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.lyon at linaro.org> wrote: > >> I don't see "-march=aarch64" is a valid flag on either LLVM or GCC. >

On 16 December 2014 at 21:12, Gundapaneni, Sumanth <sgundapa at quicinc.com> wrote: > The point here is, if you are not building for Android. > You will hit this patch with cmake configuration -DCOMPILER_RT_TEST_TRIPLE=aarch64-linux-gnu > > + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") > + test_target_arch(aarch64

It would be great if anyone can share your thoughts about the cause and possibly fix of the error below ? I would like to know why it is caused and how it can be fixed (if possible) ? The error message is: ~/llvm/build/install_android/linux-x86/clang-3688880/bin/ld.lld: error: external/boringssl/linux-aarch64/crypto/sha/sha1-armv8.S:1202: can't create dynamic relocation R_AARCH64_PREL64

Hi Tim, 2014-06-25 15:26 GMT+08:00 Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>: > Hi Kevin, > > I assume you've looked at the GCC documentation in this area, since > your ideas are very similar: > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html. I actually > think that looks like a rational set of conventions too. > > The main difference appears to be

Hi Manoj, Not too late at all, we have not got to that point of the work yet. Are there examples of this kind of build setup that are available publicly? I think I understand the problem but it'd help to see one in action. To see if there are any other Arm extensions that are already being added like this and whether those systems support GCC and how. Thanks, David Spickett.

On 23 March 2017 at 21:35, Peter Smith <peter.smith at linaro.org> wrote: > Hello Min, > > This error message occurs when the linker would have to create a > dynamic relocation in a read-only part of the program, which isn't > usually allowed when making a position independent shared-library or > position independent executable. In practice this usually means that >

Hi Manoj, I tried a few other options myself: * function 'target' attribute - the list of extensions this supports isn't complete and it doesn't enable the ACLE macros needed for intrinsics * manually defining ACLE macros - this allows intrinsics and is additive but assumes that you're not relying on codegen to emit instructions. I don't think it helps the bug linked

2nd round of missing stuff in compiler-rt which is just waiting for review --------------- http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140210/204960.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140210/204961.html The code is pretty small - Can someone please review those patches and push it. This blocks quad math stuff on aarch64 from using compiler-rt

Thanks Peter and Tim. Being that said, can I be sure that for 64 bit arm architectures (e.g. arm cortex A57) the neon feature and auto-vectorization is supported as default by clang 5.0? Because for us these two features are deal breaking for compiler evaluation. Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Best regards Zeeshan Haider Chassis Systems Control, Engineering Software Coordination, Software

On Thu, 2015-05-14 at 13:51 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: > On 5/14/2015 1:39 PM, Always Learning wrote: > > Does this mean it may be possible to run basic version of C5, C6 and C7 > > on Arm64* CPU systems ? Presumably this will include the Raspberry Pi ? > is the rasberry pi ARMv8 (arm64) ? I thought it was v7 (32bit only) ~~~~~~~~~~ Raspberry Pi 2 Model B is the second

Hi, Below is a document detailing changes we'd like to make to Clang/LLVM to improve the usability of the target options for ARM and AArch64. To keep things simple the proposed changes are listed at the start and you can find the supporting examples at the end of the document. I look forward to your feedback. Thanks, David Spickett. RFC New Clang target feature selection options for

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:47 AM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > (Mostly trying to re-focus the thread somewhat) > > Given support from Mehdi, Renato, and especially Hal who has contributed > specifically in this area to LLVM as a whole, and no strong objections from > significant contributors (I feel like the primary concerns Intel raised have > been

On 25 November 2014 at 10:11, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations

On 5/14/2015 1:39 PM, Always Learning wrote: > Does this mean it may be possible to run basic version of C5, C6 and C7 > on Arm64* CPU systems ? Presumably this will include the Raspberry Pi ? is the rasberry pi ARMv8 (arm64) ? I thought it was v7 (32bit only) -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:52 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "C Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "cfe-dev" <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "openmp-dev"