similar to: [LLVMdev] [Compiler-RT] [ARM] Where __aeabi_[il]div0 builtins should be implemented?

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:32 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com > wrote: > Sergey, > > Not that it'll save you much hassle, but here's an implementation of > __aeabi_idiv0 and __aeabi_ldiv0 that I've been sitting on for a while. > > I vaguely remember compnerd suggesting that I don't commit them to > compiler_rt, but I don't remember

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 04:48:20AM -0700, Renato Golin wrote: > I'm in favour for adding them ASAP, but we might need an ifdef to avoid > creating unnecessary (or conflicting) symbols for non-EABI targets. Sure, it makes sense. > A proper solution would be to have: > > LOCAL_LABEL(divby0): > #ifdef __ARM_EABI__ > b __aeabi_idiv0 > #else > mov r0, #0 >

> Looks as though whomever implemented the call to __aeabi_idiv0 wanted > to be conservative for non EABI targets. How could it prevent him from providing default implementation of __aeabi_idiv0() for EABI targets? > AFAIK, gnueabi targets recognize all EABI functions, so that should > work well. Not sure I understand you, nothing in compiler-rt defines these functions, they are

On Sat, Sep 6, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 September 2014 22:46, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > I did dig into this further and it seems that they are, in fact, > considered > > part of the RT-ABI :-(. Ive committed a simple conforming > implementation in > > SVN r217322. > >

On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 1:19 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > Why not adjust this instead? > > I was just being conservative. I don't know what else depends on this > library and I don't want to change things outside of my scope. > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where that doesn't hold please? If you

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 1:37 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 9 September 2014 02:18, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> > wrote: > > The current implementations actually return 0. Can you point out where > that > > doesn't hold please? > > With the current implementation... > > int foo(int a) { > return

Hello, I think the current implementation for the call "bl __aeabi_idiv0" in builtins\arm\udivsi3.S is broken. At least for the case that __aeabi_idiv0 returns. (the provided implementation does) Since LR is not preserved, the following JMP(lr) results in an endless loop. Or is this an intentional change of the behavior? The file contains another implementation enabled by

Yes, it's a bug. Please review https://reviews.llvm.org/D31716 On 4/5/2017 3:50 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 21 March 2017 at 18:32, Peter Jakubek via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> I think the current implementation for the call "bl __aeabi_idiv0" in >> builtins\arm\udivsi3.S is broken. >> At least for the case that __aeabi_idiv0

Hi Renato, > > I'm trying to add pseudo 64-bit load and store instructions for AArch64, which > > should have latencies set to "1" while being otherwise exactly the same as > > normal load and store instructions. > > Can I ask why would you need that? This is the only way I found to stop Machine Instruction Scheduler from reordering load and store

Out of curiosity, how would you envision fast-math flags interacting with constant expressions? Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any flags that would be relevant if the expression can just be constant-folded away at full precision anyways. > On Nov 28, 2014, at 4:56 AM, Sergey Dmitrouk <sdmitrouk at accesssoftek.com> wrote: > > Doesn't look like a bug, more like a

Hi, I'm wondering why lib/AsmParser/LLParser handles fast-math flags in the following IR: ... %val = fmul nnan double 1.0, 1.0 ... but doesn't allow any flags if "fmul" is inside "phi": ... %val = phi double [ fmul (double 1.0, double 1.0), %cond.true ], [ fmul (double 1.0, double 1.0), %cond.false ] ...

Hello Sergey, thanks for the suggestion. The name of the pass is not what triggers the assertion. The test case I attached to the email is a stripped-down version of a much more complicated pass (with a proper name) that originally caused the problem. Also, to be sure, I just tried to change the name of the pass to something more significant. It did not work. Cheers, Alberto On Sun, Aug 10,

Hi, I'd like to make code emitted by LLVM that includes floating point operations which raise FP exceptions behave closer to what is defined by IEEE754 standard. I'm not going to "fix everything", just incorrect behaviour I faced so far. Most of troubles regarding FP exceptions are caused by optimizations, so there should be a flag to disable/block them if one wants to get

I noticed the compiler-rt/lib/builtins/CmakeLists.txt is not including the .S files in building clang_rt.builtins-arm.a We need to tell the CMake build system that the .S files are also the source files. Is there any intention behind leaving the .S files not to compile? If not, let me know and I will push a patch. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment

Hello, I'm trying to add pseudo 64-bit load and store instructions for AArch64, which should have latencies set to "1" while being otherwise exactly the same as normal load and store instructions. Various assertions fire (even different ones for the same binary, maybe something is uninitialized) and I can't understand what's wrong. Related pieces added by me: to

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

Hi all, I am trying to create an out-of-tree LLVM project. I have written a Test project following the guide in [1] that triggers the problem. Pass body is in [2]. The CMakeLists.txt file for the "root" directory is in [3] The CMakeLists.txt file for the "pass" directory is in [4] When I run opt --load=libTest.so I trigger the following assertion: opt: CommandLine.cpp:134:

Hi again, It's partially done. My concern is that it won't be accepted as is because of adding the flag parameter in a lot of places. I'd like to show what it looks like (here, not on llvm-commit yet), maybe someone could suggest a better way. There are two sources of the flag: field of TargetOptions and function attribute. I had to add the later one for InstCombine pass. Still

On 22 March 2017 at 01:38, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Small example fail.c: >> >> // clang -O2 -target armv7a-none-none-eabi -mfloat-abi=hard -ffast-math >> -S fail.c -o - >> extern float sinf (float x); >> float sin1 (float x) {return (sinf (x));} I changed your example slightly to make sure we're passing the

On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 10:25 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Damanjit Singh <dsingh at adobe.com> wrote: > >> Hi Saleem, >> >> Though a simple app works great I am facing few issues trying to link a >> slightly complex object file, generated via LLVM, with some libs generated >> via