similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Do not generate nopl instruction on CPUs that don't support it.

Please include a testcase with the patch. gas uses " nopl 0x0(%eax)" for k6_2. Are you sure it is a gas bug? On 3 November 2013 13:50, Mikulas Patocka <mikulas at artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote: > Hi > > This patch fixes code generation bug - 586-class CPUs don't support the > nopl instruction and some 686-class CPUs don't support it too. > > I

On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > Please include a testcase with the patch. I'm sending testcase here. Compile it with "clang -O2 -march=k6-2 -c loop.c" > gas uses " nopl 0x0(%eax)" for k6_2. Are you sure it is a gas bug? Yes, it is gas bug. I should report it to binutils maintainers. Mikulas > On 3 November 2013 13:50, Mikulas Patocka >

On 7 November 2013 18:31, Mikulas Patocka <mikulas at artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote: > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > >> Please include a testcase with the patch. > > I'm sending testcase here. Compile it with > "clang -O2 -march=k6-2 -c loop.c" The test should be in the patch itself. It can use llvm-mc to check how the nops are

A friend has an old Pentium-133 laptop with 32MB of memory and a 1.3 GB hard disk that he wants to use as a web server for a very small community. Will CentOS (or any other RHEL derived distribution for that matter) install and run with acceptable performance on such a system, or will a specialized distribution like Damn Small Linux be a better choice? In this case, disk space is not a big

This attempts to address http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=18220 It also fixes a test which was requiring the *wrong* output. I'm relatively happy with this part, and it even solves most of the hard part of feature request for .code16 in bug 8684 — which was actually why I started prodding at this. But I could do with some help with the 16-bit signed relocation handling, which I've

Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits instead of this thread. On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > Two minor notes: > -- >> diff --git a/lib/Target/X86/X86AsmBackend.cpp b/lib/Target/X86/X86AsmBackend.cpp >> index 2cf65c1..02ac2be 100644 >> ---

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits > instead of this thread. > > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> Hi Michael, >> >> Two minor notes: >> -- >>> diff --git

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >> Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits >> instead of this thread. >> >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:41 AM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote:

On Tue, 12 Nov 2013, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 7 November 2013 18:31, Mikulas Patocka > <mikulas at artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > > > >> Please include a testcase with the patch. > > > > I'm sending testcase here. Compile it with > > "clang -O2 -march=k6-2 -c

On 20.02.2015 16:38, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 15:58 +0100, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko > wrote: >> When experimenting with compiling GRUB2 with clang using integrated as, >> I found out that it generates a 16-bit code bigger than gas counterpart >> and result gets too big for size constraints of bootsector. This was >> traced

On Fri, 2015-02-20 at 16:05 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > > It's been a while since I looked at this... but I think for the short > jumps we just emit the 8-bit version and there's a fixup which can go > back and re-emit the instruction in 32-bit mode if it finds it doesn't > fit? > > Do we just need to support a similar fixup for promoting 16-bit to >

On 26 July 2010 18:08, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at gmail.com> > wrote: > > You probably want to add Cygwin and MinGW32 Triples as well :- > > case Triple::Win32: > > + case Triple::Cygwin: > > + case Triple::MinGW32: > > return new

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Aaron Gray <aaronngray.lists at gmail.com> wrote: > You probably want to add Cygwin and MinGW32 Triples as well :- >    case Triple::Win32: > +  case Triple::Cygwin: > +  case Triple::MinGW32: >      return new WindowsX86AsmBackend (T); > Aaron Can someone test this on those platforms? That change would effect quite a few people. -

On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 1:28 PM, Daniel Dunbar <daniel at zuster.org> wrote: >> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:25 PM, Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Daniel somehow replied to one of my previous commits on llvm-commits >>> instead of this thread.

Thanks for the feedback. The line for commit-worthy is a round of reviews and some tests > showing that basic functionality works. > Regarding tests, I would like to have some form of automated regression testing, but am not sure how to go about doing so. My current testing involves running through my compilers regression test (compiles links and executes a number of test sources) and

On Oct 23, 2012, at 6:22 PM, Joshua Cranmer <pidgeot18 at gmail.com> wrote: > On 10/23/2012 1:58 PM, John Criswell wrote: >> Dear All, >> >> I'm enhancing a MachineFunctionPass that enforces control-flow integrity. One of the things I want to do is to set the alignment of an instruction (by adding NOPs before it in the MachineBasicBlock or by emitting an alignment

Hi Gents, For those of us with out-of-tree backends which are not 32bit, the msp430 backend is a useful vehicle for examining changes and testing out ideas. So I was wondering about enabling debug output on the MSP430 backend so that I can illustrate a few issues to Adrian and you on the variable pieces side. (there doesn't appear to be any specific person claiming the msp430 code right

Hi, I've run Clang Static Analyzer checker alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks over LLVM codebase to detect false-positives and at the same time eliminate memory leaks. The majority of leaks were detected in lib/Target/* and lib/MC/*. In all cases the similar trick was detected as a leak (example from lib/Target/Sparc/MCTargetDesc/SparcMCTargetDesc.cpp) : static MCStreamer

I have been working on getting ELF object file writing working for the MBlaze backend. Currently, each supported backend calls ELFObjectWriter::createELFObjectWriter from within the backend's TargetAsmBackend::createObjectWriter method. The createELFObjectWriter method then creates a new backend specific ELFObjectWriter class (either X86ELFObjectWriter or ARMELFObjectWriter) by decoding a

I've updated CentOS 4.0 to 4.1 on several machines (some desktops, some servers). However on my laptop, update is failing with following error just after headers are downloaded: --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 for package: glibc --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.3.4-2 is needed by package