similar to: [LLVMdev] [Mips][TargetOptions] How to properly instantiate TargetOptions in MC layer?

Hi Eric, The main thing we need to fix is that the selection between ELF32/ELF64 needs to depend on the ABI being N64 and not on whether we used a mips-linux-gnu triple versus a mips64-linux-gnu triple. So 'clang -target mips-linux-gnu' -mips64r2 -mabi=64' should produce an ELF64 and 'clang -target mips64-linux-gnu -mips32r2 -mabi=32' should produce an ELF32. In terms of code,

Hi Eric, as I was working on the same issues that are covered in your patch I also made a change in clang driver to pass this option to the assembler. Could you please review it and tell me your opinion? http://reviews.llvm.org/D6091 Thanks Vladimir ________________________________ From: Daniel Sanders Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2015 8:59 PM To: Eric Christopher; Vladimir Medic; llvmdev at

Hi, I've run Clang Static Analyzer checker alpha.cplusplus.NewDeleteLeaks over LLVM codebase to detect false-positives and at the same time eliminate memory leaks. The majority of leaks were detected in lib/Target/* and lib/MC/*. In all cases the similar trick was detected as a leak (example from lib/Target/Sparc/MCTargetDesc/SparcMCTargetDesc.cpp) : static MCStreamer

I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have to share the same FloatABIType setting. This is silly, and I plan to fix it

On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer > (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in > a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I > found is that the TargetOptions are all global; you could create a > TargetMachine targeting ARM and X86 in two threads, but they both have

On 1 December 2011 17:15, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: > >> I'm running LLVM under threadsanitizer >> (http://code.google.com/p/data-race-test/) to find and remove races in >> a larger program that uses LLVM as a library. One of the things that I >> found is that the TargetOptions are all

On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >> Instead of adding a bunch of instance variables (+ getters/setters) into TargetMachine, why not make TargetOptions be a class, and have TM contain an instance of it? > > That works too, it makes little difference to me. One reason is that > most references to these globals are inside classes that derive from > TargetMachine so I

Hi, we generally run our JIT with UnsafeFPMath enabled, but there are a few specific instances where a block of code needs to follow strict FPMath. Is there a way to temporarily override TargetOptions for a specific block of IR? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:44 AM, James Molloy wrote: > Hi Owen, > > Having looked into this due to Clang failing PlumHall with it recently I can give an opinion... > > I think !NoExcessFPPrecision covers FMA completely. There are indeed some algorithms which give incorrect results when FMA is enabled, examples being those that do floating point comparisons such as: a * b + c - d. If

Hi Owen, Having looked into this due to Clang failing PlumHall with it recently I can give an opinion... I think !NoExcessFPPrecision covers FMA completely. There are indeed some algorithms which give incorrect results when FMA is enabled, examples being those that do floating point comparisons such as: a * b + c - d. If c == d, it is still possible for that result not to equal a*b, as "+c

Hello everyone, I'd like to propose the attached patch to form FMA intrinsics aggressively, but in order to do so I need some clarification on the intended semantics for the various FP precision-related TargetOptions. I've summarized the three relevant ones below: UnsafeFPMath - Defaults to off, enables "less precise" results than permitted by IEEE754. Comments specifically

Hi, I am lead developer of a project that is using LLVM to implement an ahead-of-time compiled functional language. We use llc -tailcallopt to ensure that functions that end in a tail call are compiled to a tail call at the machine level, because we have a number of cases in our interpreter where functions with different function signatures call one another in deeply nested recursive calls. We

Hi Eric, It's the unsolved problems on the pass-MCTargetOptions-everywhere path that are my main concern with that approach rather than the amount of work. The first problem is that the result of IRObjectFile::CollectAsmUndefinedRefs() depends on the ABI but IRObjectFile doesn't know it. How would you deliver the ABI to IRObjectFile? The second problem is that IRLinker will link

Hi Dwight, Welcome to LLVM-dev! A few comments below. Cc'ing a few people who hopefully can add info on some of the specific issues here. Teresa On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:04 AM Dwight Guth via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > I am lead developer of a project that is using LLVM to implement an > ahead-of-time compiled functional language. We use llc

On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, 2:39 PM Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 2019, at 10:24 AM, Steven Wu <stevenwu at apple.com> wrote: > > Hi Dwight > > Thanks for the feedback. For the issue you reported, there has been few > reviews trying to tweak the -mllvm option when using legacy LTO interfaces > (myself included) but it never got enough

Hi Craig and Rail, At Movidius, we have had to make a few changes to ‘MCAsmStreamer’ to support our assembler which is not ‘gas’ compliant. Earlier versions of LLVM (3.1 and 3.2) did have a separate header for ‘MCAsmStreamer’, and we had previously sub-classed this. The following are modifications that we have had to make because although ‘MCAsmStreamer’ does most of what we need,

Hi Dwight Thanks for the feedback. For the issue you reported, there has been few reviews trying to tweak the -mllvm option when using legacy LTO interfaces (myself included) but it never got enough traction to moving forward. Note how -tailcallopt is implemented as a -mllvm flag means that it is a debug option and probably not well tested. The option is also not stable which means it can be

Chris Lattner wrote: > On Dec 1, 2011, at 5:23 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: >>> Instead of adding a bunch of instance variables (+ getters/setters) into TargetMachine, why not make TargetOptions be a class, and have TM contain an instance of it? >> >> That works too, it makes little difference to me. One reason is that >> most references to these globals are inside classes

On Feb 8, 2012, at 10:42 AM, Hal Finkel wrote: > In my experience, users of numerical codes expect that the compiler will > use FMA instructions where it can, unless specifically asked to avoid > doing so by the user. Even though this can sometimes produce a different > result (*almost* always a better one), the performance gain is too large > to be ignored by default. I highly

On Wed, 2012-02-08 at 10:11 -0800, Owen Anderson wrote: > Hello everyone, > > > I'd like to propose the attached patch to form FMA intrinsics > aggressively, but in order to do so I need some clarification on the > intended semantics for the various FP precision-related > TargetOptions. I've summarized the three relevant ones below: > > > UnsafeFPMath -