Displaying 20 results from an estimated 600 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android"
2014 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android
> Alexey's approach with CMake sub-projects.
I prefer that direction as well, but what I've proposed is a solution
that works today. To support cross-compilation, we'll need to loop
over each supported arch (llvm-config --targets-built), then loop over
each supported triple for each arch (hard-coded map?), and then pair
up each triple with a sysroot (system paths provided by the
2014 Mar 28
2
[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android
> Note that ASan tests on Android require llvm-symbolizer binary.
That's a really good point. And I see that llvm-symbolizer can't just
be pulled into compiler-rt because it has dependencies on DebugInfo,
Object, and Support libraries.
This throws a big wrench in Alexey's plan to have the native
compiler-rt build generate the cross-compiled binaries for all
supported targets. We
2014 Apr 01
2
[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android
It does sound like Android is better suited for "honest"
cross-compilation, rather than "build compiler-rt for all targets we
can find" model.
I'm still not convinced that we must require the "ninja install" step.
Could we just "ninja clang" and then build the second stage against
the first stage build directory? Will this "find_package" thing
2014 Apr 02
3
[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android
Hi Greg,
On Wed, Apr 2, 2014 at 2:50 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexey, Evgeniy,
>
> I propose the following steps to unify multi-arch support in compiler-rt:
>
> 1) The compiler-rt test suite adds "-L${CMAKE_CURRENT_BINARY_DIR}/lib"
> to its 'clang' variables. This way we can test the sanitizers without
> installing any libs
2014 Apr 03
2
[LLVMdev] Building sanitizers for Android
On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 5:04 AM, Greg Fitzgerald <garious at gmail.com> wrote:
> > we would still want to use compiler-rt test-suite in a standalone mode,
> to test fully built/installed toolchains,
> and even GCC.
>
> Sounds good.
>
>
> > Clang driver links the static xsan runtimes from a hardcoded
> > paths in Clang resource directory, and doesn't
2019 Jun 08
2
Help Building LLVM for Android
Hey Guys,
I'm working on a project in Android related to System-level Audio DSP
Effects for Tuning Android Audio. I want to leverage Faust (
https://faust.grame.fr/) to allow users to program their own filters.
Faust provides a libfaust implementation which includes a JIT Compiler
which leverages LLVM and seems to be the best path for me to use.
Unfortunately I'm having problems
2018 Mar 23
2
cuda cross compiling issue for target aarch64-linux-androideabi
I was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue when cross compiling
cuda on Nvidia TX2 running android.
The error is
In file included from <built-in>:1:
In file included from
prebuilts/clang/host/linux-x86/clang-4667116/lib64/clang/7.0.1/include/__clang_cuda_runtime_wrapper.h:219:
../cuda/targets/aarch64-linux-androideabi/include/math_functions.hpp:3477:19:
error: no matching function
2013 Jul 17
3
[LLVMdev] regarding compiling clang for different platform
Hi,
I am new to LLVM
I want to use llvm and clang on Android, I have downloaded android
toolchain and did the configure for llvm using the following commad
./configure --build=arm-linux-androideabi --host=arm-linux-androideabi
--target=arm-linux-androideabi --with-float=hard --with-fpu=neon
--enable-targets=arm --enable-optimized --enable-assertions
and was getting the error
"checking
2018 Mar 23
0
cuda cross compiling issue for target aarch64-linux-androideabi
+Artem Belevich <tra at google.com>
On Fri, Mar 23, 2018 at 7:53 PM Bharath Bhoopalam via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has encountered this issue when cross compiling
> cuda on Nvidia TX2 running android.
>
> The error is
> In file included from <built-in>:1:
> In file included from
>
2018 Mar 15
2
[RFC] Stop giving a default CPU to the LTO plugin?
Hello everyone, this is most likely Arm specific, but could affect
other targets where there is a somewhat complex relationship between
the triple and mcpu option.
At present when clang is used as a linker driver for the gold-plugin
and when using and an explicit -mcpu is not given to clang, then clang
will always generate a -Wl,-plugin-opt=mcpu=<default CPU> where the
default CPU is based
2014 Feb 13
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Unwind behaviour in Clang/LLVM
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 13:47, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote:
>> Hm, I see that -funwind-tables on arm-linux-androideabi target
>> replaces this "cantunwind" with a proper unwind table.
>> Hence http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2762.
>
> If Android is
2013 Jul 18
2
Help building OPUS library using FIXED_POINT option
Hi,
We are rebasing our audio compression subsystem using OPUS rather than SPEEX. The platform is Android but this piece is written in C code: we need to support armv5/armv7/x86 architectures.... and we use the released opus-1.1beta package from here<http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/opus/opus-1.1-beta.tar.gz>.
A lot of our OPUS build system + code to drive the audio compression has been
2018 Mar 15
0
[RFC] Stop giving a default CPU to the LTO plugin?
On 3/15/2018 9:43 AM, Peter Smith via llvm-dev wrote:
> Hello everyone, this is most likely Arm specific, but could affect
> other targets where there is a somewhat complex relationship between
> the triple and mcpu option.
>
> At present when clang is used as a linker driver for the gold-plugin
> and when using and an explicit -mcpu is not given to clang, then clang
> will
2014 Feb 13
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Unwind behaviour in Clang/LLVM
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote:
> On 13 February 2014 11:35, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugenis at google.com> wrote:
>> Unwind table index '.ARM.exidx' at offset 0x818 contains 4 entries:
>> 0x5d4 <main>: 0x1 [cantunwind]
>
> This is exactly what I meant.
>
>
>> because the latter prevent any
2014 Aug 07
2
[LLVMdev] Prevent clang from replacing code with library calls
> On Aug 7, 2014, at 4:12 AM, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote:
>
>> I downloaded the latest NDK (r10) and compiled with the following cmd:
>> arm-linux-androideabi-clang myMemcpy.c -S -fno-builtin -o0
>> It still produces assembly with a call to "memcpy". Maybe the -fno-builtin
>> is broken also in the latest release.
>
2015 Aug 28
4
TSAN hack on AArch64 for Android
IMO having to disable 2/3 of the tests means the patch isn't ready yet.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 9:31 AM, Jason Kim <jasonk at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]
> > > TESTS!
> > > Currently, about 2/3 tests for tsan fail/flake on android+aarch64.
> > >
2014 Aug 05
2
[LLVMdev] Prevent clang from replacing code with library calls
Hi Jim,
I have tried "-fno-builtin" but it didn't help.
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> "-fno-builtin” is probably what you want.
>
> -Jim
>
> On Aug 4, 2014, at 2:19 AM, David Sela <sela.david at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Clang optimizes code by replacing some parts
2014 Aug 07
2
[LLVMdev] Prevent clang from replacing code with library calls
Hi,
I downloaded the latest NDK (r10) and compiled with the following cmd:
*arm-linux-androideabi-clang myMemcpy.c -S -fno-builtin -o0*
It still produces assembly with a call to "memcpy". Maybe the -*fno-builtin
*is broken also in the latest release.
Do you have some other idea that can help here?
Thanks,
David
On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at
2014 Aug 04
2
[LLVMdev] Prevent clang from replacing code with library calls
Clang optimizes code by replacing some parts with efficient library
functions.
For example the following code:
for (i=0;i<size;++i)
dest[i]=src[i];
will be compiled to (target=ARM assembly):
bl __aeabi_memcpy(PLT)
The compile cmd:
/usr/share/android-arm-l14-toolchain/bin/clang31 -cc1 -triple
arm-none-linux-androideabi -S -target-abi aapcs-linux -target-cpu arm1022e
2017 Sep 26
2
Difference between -mattr=+soft-float and -float-abi=soft
Hi,
I’ve run into a case where `llc -mattr=+soft-float` for
"armv7-unknown-linux-androideabi” segfaults, while
`llc -float-abi=soft` does not. Similarly if the
"target-features"="+soft-float” metadata is embedded,
llc segfaults.
I fear I’m missing something rather subtle here, could
someone help me understand the differences?
Cheers,
Moritz