similar to: [LLVMdev] clang command line for ppc?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 30000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] clang command line for ppc?"

2014 Feb 21
3
[LLVMdev] make check issue with llvm-cov
If you can help get it working on big-endian systems, we should be able to remove the XFAIL. That seems like the cleanest way out of this. Yuchen sent a patch to llvm-commits on 12/19/13. (I can resend it to you if you don’t have that.) Can you try that out on a BE mips system? On Feb 21, 2014, at 7:11 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com> wrote: > On 02/21/2014 02:58 AM, Daniel
2014 Feb 21
3
[LLVMdev] make check issue with llvm-cov
> > And in the test file there is a line: > > XFAIL: powerpc64, s390x, mips, sparc > > This is a crude attempt at "XFAIL: big-endian". The mips entry here is just > wrong if the system is little-endian - the test passes on little-endian machines > and fails on big-endian. This is obviously a problem. 'XFAIL: mips' counts as an XFAIL for all mips targets
2014 Mar 27
2
[LLVMdev] using just llvm/clang for building mips llvm
Geting a seg fault. Have not investigted the cause. rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/richard$ tar vfxz ~/Downloads/ellcc-mips-linux-2014-Mar-24-07-32-26.tgz rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/richard/ellcc/bin$ gdb ./ecc GNU gdb (GDB) 7.4.1-debian Copyright (C) 2012 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html> This is free software: you are
2014 Feb 25
2
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
2014 Feb 25
3
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at
2014 Feb 25
3
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >> >> I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac >> >> There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems >> like there used to be.
2014 Feb 25
2
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: > reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >>>> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >>>> >>>> I did look at the autoconf input files
2014 Feb 25
2
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems like there used to be. You can find scripts on the internet when you google of people adding disable-valgrind to configure. I can probably implement disable-valgrind in configure.ac. Reed On 02/24/2014 04:33
2014 Feb 21
6
[LLVMdev] make check issue with llvm-cov
rkotler at mipsswbrd006-le:~/caviumllvm/build/test$ make Making LLVM 'lit.site.cfg' file... Making LLVM unittest 'lit.site.cfg' file... ( ulimit -t 600 ; ulimit -d 512000 ; ulimit -m 512000 ; ulimit -s 8192 ; \ /usr/bin/python /home/rkotler/workspace/llvm/utils/lit/lit.py -s -v . ) XPASS: LLVM :: tools/llvm-cov/llvm-cov.test (8916 of 9784) ******************** TEST
2014 Mar 27
5
[LLVMdev] using just llvm/clang for building mips llvm
In case anyone is interested.... We don't need to compile llvm/clang using gcc anymore for the building of mips hosted llvm compilers. We build a linux mips hosted compiler starting with llvm/clang on x86 linux using the normal configure scripts and then can use that resulting compiler to build further llvm/clang native compilers on the mips linux host. The cross compiler and native
2014 Feb 25
2
[LLVMdev] configure with clang vs gcc
On 02/24/2014 04:19 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:14 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I'm trying to build a native hosted mips compiler on ubuntu x86. >> >> When I run configure with clang/llvm as the compiler, configure thinks that >> zlib is present and that valgrind is. >> >> But later on the make it
2013 Aug 16
2
[LLVMdev] running spec2006 with clang
On 16 August 2013 20:02, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > -std=gnu89 is not valid for c++ > I think the point here is that this is the default std for GCC but not Clang, so you have to force clang to behave like GCC. For C++, you'll have to force whatever default GCC has for it's C++ standard. Though, GCC 4.8 is getting very close to Clang's behaviour, so
2013 Aug 16
5
[LLVMdev] workflow for linking clang
the good news is that (thanks to Simon) the clang driver is working so well for Mips now that we are more or less switching away from using llc during development for all our various host/target configurations. the bad news is that we have make clang all the time and it is really slow to do that. we used to be able to just make in the lib/target/Mips and then in llc and it was really fast.
2013 Dec 20
4
[LLVMdev] running clang format on the Mips target
We are considering running clang format on the whole Mips target. Is there any rule against this? Is there any good argument against doing this even if there is no rule against it? TIA. Reed
2014 Jun 11
2
[LLVMdev] constraining two virtual registers to be the same physical register
On 06/10/2014 05:51 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > Hi Reed > > You can do this on the instruction itself by telling it 2 operands > must be the same register. For example, from X86: > > let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in > defm INSERTPS : SS41I_insertf32<0x21, "insertps">; > > Thanks, Hi Pete, Sorry. I should have been more specific. I'm
2014 Sep 30
2
[LLVMdev] ptrtoint
If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.
2012 Jun 28
2
[LLVMdev] recursing llvm
Okay. Cool. So do you bootrstrap and verify as part of the usual testing? Do the nightly scripts do this? Reed On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Reed Kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 05:00 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:24 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote:
2013 Aug 16
1
[LLVMdev] workflow for linking clang
On 08/16/2013 02:23 PM, David Chisnall wrote: > On 16 Aug 2013, at 22:01, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> we used to be able to just make in the lib/target/Mips and then in llc and it was really fast. >> >> part of it is probably that we have all this debug information that we don't need because none of use are working on clang itself (well, almost
2013 Sep 18
2
[LLVMdev] forcing two instructions to be together
I used the A9 schedule as an example: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together. ________________________________________ From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM To: Micah Villmow
2012 Jun 05
3
[LLVMdev] technical debt
Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. Reed On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 06/04/2012 03:25 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure neither llvm nor clang have any technical debt at all. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:18 PM, reed