similar to: [LLVMdev] Integrated 'as' for PowerPC by default?

Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. > But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Well, it's support is not complete ... The integrated assembler supports all general-purpose instructions the compiler itself generates, but has only partial support for all the rest, in particular nearly no

Hi all friends of PowerPC! My last gripe hindering me calling out "VICTORY!" on my large PPC embedded project is thread level storage not being implemented in the backend. I have filed this bug: http://llvm.org/PR12593 I wonder whether there is some fundamental obstacle (compared to the x86 backend, where this feature seems to work), or is it just "simple matter of

On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but >> not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion >> failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: >> the Clang

Hi Hal, I only just noticed that about a year ago, Jim removed CPU auto-detection for the X86 target: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-April/071991.html http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140407/212676.html >Currently the X86 backend does CPU auto-detection and subtarget feature >detection when the TargetMachine is created if no explicit CPU was

Hi all, at my paid job I am pushing the Clang/LLVM combo into evaluation (we currently use a gcc3.4 generation toolchain). Since we produce for the embedded domain we need a reliable host (i.e. simulation i686) / target (PPC) dual setup. To this end I almost succeeded grinding through our large(ish) codebase but found some PPC snags. I filed these bugs, complete with repro IR code:

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote on 11.12.2012 12:48:55: > On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > Maybe I'm confused somehow, but I thought this one: > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 > > does bootstrap and then run both LLVM and Clang tests (successfully): > >

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote on 23.03.2015 19:42:06: > > >Attached are draft patches that do this for X86. Similar but smaller > > >cleanups can also be done for SystemZ and PowerPC if it’s agreed > > >this is a good idea. > > > > However, this was then never implemented for SystemZ and PowerPC. > > Should we do so as well? > >

Hi all, I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so far alongside with some questions. - In PPCSubtarget.h there's DarwinABI, SVR4ABI and ELFv2ABI. - The CodeGenerator documentation claims that the AIX PowerPC ABI is followed (with some deviations). Is this refering to the DarwinABI? -

Hello Ulrich, Thank you for a good explanation of the different variants. 2014-07-30 21:29 GMT+02:00 Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com>: > Hi David, > >> I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the PowerPC >> backend and I'm getting a bit confused. Here's what I've gathered so >> far alongside with some questions. > >

On Fri, 16 Mar 2012 10:32:47 +0100 Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > at my paid job I am pushing the Clang/LLVM combo into evaluation (we > currently use a gcc3.4 generation toolchain). Great! Since we produce for the > embedded domain we need a reliable > host (i.e. simulation i686) / target (PPC) dual setup. To this end I > almost succeeded

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ulrich Weigand" <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> > To: "David Wiberg" <dwiberg at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 2:29:22 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [PowerPC] ABI questions > > Hi David, > > > I'm trying to understand which ABIs are supported in the

Hi devs, after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should probably find out whether an optimized algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > I've been working to revive the PPC64 build bots, and succeeded, but > not for the right reasons. There were still bootstrap assertion > failures and other pretty blatant errors. Then we figured out why: > the Clang bootstrapping build bots for Power7 are not actually > running any of the Clang tests! > > Could one

On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 13:45 +0100, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com> wrote on 11.12.2012 12:48:55: > > On 10.12.2012, at 15:19, Ulrich Weigand <Ulrich.Weigand at de.ibm.com> > wrote: > > > Maybe I'm confused somehow, but I thought this one: > > > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 > > > does