similar to: [LLVMdev] Debugging on unavailable hardware

Hi Renato, Thank you very much for the directions, I am going to recommit my fix. What are hardware used in buildbots? Are these common boards like PandaBoard or some thing special? What is RAM installed? Thanks, --Serge 2014-12-11 2:36 GMT+06:00 Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>: > On 10 December 2014 at 19:06, Serge Pavlov <sepavloff at gmail.com> wrote: > > In

Seems there were a couple of correlated failures that appear to be flakes on this buildbot recently: green: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13974 red: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64le-linux-multistage/builds/13975 (target-override.c during stage 1, seems to be missing the directory/symlink it just created) red:

Well, I am at my wit's end. I have copied over the script and directories for this test case and run it a few million times. First I was running one at a time, then I switched to kicking off 1000 at a time. All the while, the bots continued to run on the same machine. The script never failed even once. I am not sure if this has something to do with Python as part of llvm-lit or what is going

> > I'm not sure why this is an issue. Yes, these two intrinsics depend > on the current rounding mode according to the C standard, and yes, > LLVM in default mode assumes that the current rounding mode is the > default rounding mode. But the same holds true for many other > intrinsics and even the arithmetic IR operations like add. Any other intrinsic, like `floor`,

Sure. I didn't use lit or ninja. I simply copied the script produced by lit (/home/buildbots/ppc64le-clang-multistage-test/clang-ppc64le-multistage/stage1/tools/clang/test/Driver/Output/target-override.c.script) into a temporary directory (along with a deep copy of the build directory). I modified the paths in the script to point to the temporary directory. Then I ran the script in a loop. For

Should be fixed by https://reviews.llvm.org/D87103 Shall we consider deprecating(emitting a warning)/removing %T from lit? lldb, lld/COFF and clang-tools-extra are the three major users of %T. There are a few other %T in other places but there are not too many. We will also investigate whether other projects using lit are using %T. On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 11:25 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at

This is likely due to a race condition (%T is a shared parent directory). I'll put up a patch to fix it. On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 10:00 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Is the machine running any jobs in parallel? Would it be worth trying running lit in the loop, rather than the script? (perhaps lit's doing something interesting) or maybe the

Files '.arcconfig' still contain reference to http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/, so arcanist doesn't work. Thanks, --Serge 2014-04-06 3:11 GMT+07:00 Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com>: > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > >> Short update - the sending to the *-commits lists doesn't work yet - I'm >>

> > One concern with replacing llvm.rint and llvm.nearbyint with > llvm.roundeven makes it difficult to turn back into a libcall if the > backend doesn't have an instruction for it. You can't just call the > roundeven library function since that wouldn't exist in older libm > implementations. So ideally you would know which function was originally > used in the

+cfe-dev as the discussion is now biased toward C standard. I'm not sure what problem you see here. In default mode, i.e. > when there is no "#pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS on" in effect, > then the compiler can always assume that the default rounding > mode is in effect. Well, if #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS on is not in effect, that means > that the user has promised that at

https://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/lit.html already lists %T as "parent directory of %t (not unique, deprecated, do not use)". See also https://reviews.llvm.org/D35396 On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 3:37 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Yeah, I think I'd be up for considering deprecation of %T due to the risk > of race conditions/conflicts between tests. %t

Hi everyone, According to the current design an intrinsic call that depends on current floating point environment (for example, rounding mode) or change it (for example by raising FP exceptions) is represented by constrained intrinsics. The latter have attached metadata that provide info about current FP environment and have attribute `IntrInaccessibleMemOnly` that helps keeping order of

Some clarification after getting feedback from Craig Topper…. It’s probably best to say in the documentation that the llvm.nearbyint and llvm.rint functions “assume the default rounding mode, roundToNearest”. This will allow the optimizer to transform them as if they were rounding to nearest without requiring backends to use an encoding that enforces roundToNearest as the rounding mode for these

Which optimization did you find unsafe? Thanks, --Serge ср, 21 авг. 2019 г. в 05:12, Cameron McInally <cameron.mcinally at nyu.edu>: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 1:02 PM Serge Pavlov via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> During the review of https://reviews.llvm.org/D65997 >>

I think that was maybe the discussion on https://reviews.llvm.org/D78245 On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 6:22 PM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I have a vague memory that libcxx wanted it for something, and claimed it > would be hard to work around not having it. > > Anyone else remember that? I can’t dredge up the details, sorry… > > In any event, a separate

> > The only issue I see is that since we also assume FP operations have no > side effects by default there is no difference between llvm.rint and > llvm.nearbyint. I wouldn’t have a problem with dropping llvm.rint > completely. The forthcoming C standard ( http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n2454.pdf, 7.12.9.8) defines new function, `roundeven`, which implements

On 10/03, Kaylor, Andrew via llvm-dev wrote: > I’d like to emphasize that the constrained intrinsics prevent > optimizations *by default*. We have a plan to go back and teach > individual optimizations how to handle these intrinsics. The idea is > that if an optimization knows nothing about the constrained intrinsics > then it won’t try to transform them, but if an optimization has

Hi Serge, Thanks for your help. I have looked at the change log, and so far as I can tell, my implementation is pretty much identical to all of the in-tree targets, but I’m missing something and can’t see what it is. I have simplified my TD description to just: def MyCallseqStart : SDNode<"ISD::CALLSEQ_START", SDCallSeqStart<[SDTCisVT<0, i32>,

On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 8:09 PM Finkel, Hal J. <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Andy, thanks for writing this up. A few thoughts: > > 1. The mental model that I have is that there is always an FP_CONTRACT pragma: there's some default (implicit) pragma at the beginning, and what it says (off/on/fast) is controlled by the command-line flags (or the driver's default if no flags

LLVM IR represents higher level than assembler code, it keeps some names and it is easier to revert the IR to source code than a binary format. The main task of LLVM IR is code generation. I don't think adding obfuscation has particular worth, those who need it can use tools and approaches specifically aimed at obfuscation. Even simple rename of identifiers in source code makes C/C++ file