similar to: [LLVMdev] [3.4 branch] PPC64 regressions

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 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 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, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > > syntactic loops). > > Yup, this is EXACTLY what is

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +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

On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 10:13:48AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 09:55:54AM +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

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Patrick Flanagan wrote: > I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM. > I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from > CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's > sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using > the C backend to generate native

I was able to run through all the C/C++ benchmarks in SPEC using LLVM. I'm on OS X 10.3.3. I did a quick comparison between LLVM (latest from CVS as of 4/27) and gcc 3.3 (Apple's build 20030304). For simplicity's sake, the only flag I used was -O3 for each compiler and I was using the C backend to generate native code for PPC. Most of the LLVM results were close to gcc

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

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: > > > > > > > > >

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

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

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