similar to: [LLVMdev] CPU information in the LLVMTargetMachine constructor

Hi all, I'm working in a company to port LLVM on their own processor. I'm trying to run the test-suite, but it seems that it is usually run directly on the processor which is tested. In my case, I cannot run it on the processor, but I have a simulator on which I would like to run the test-suite. Also, it seems to me that the test-suite start by compiling some tools that have to be run

Hi Teresa, Thank you for the help, adding the "used" attribute worked just fine. It made me realize that the memset function is never inlined by the LTO optimization even without my implementation of the "EmitTargetCodeForMemSet" method. I supposed that the passes dealing with the memset function happen too late, is that correct? Thank you again, Romaric On Fri, Aug 28, 2020

Hi everyone, I have 2 implementations of "memset". A standard one, and another one optimized when the pointer and the size respect some specific constraints. I am able to choose the proper one in the "EmitTargetCodeForMemSet" method that I implemented for my backend. My issue is when I am compiling with the LTO optimisation, the linker tells me that the optimized memset

Hi, I have an issue with some builtins that are reordered (during instructions selection it seems) with others instructions and/or others builtins. Is it normal? How could I prevent it from happening? Thanks, Romaric

Hi, I'm working on OpenCL and I'm using clang as compiler (based on clang 3.7.0). I have a issue, I'm generating a bitcode file (that I can print before before the generation). But when I'm trying to read it again with clang, I have this issue: "error: Invalid record" How can I managed to know where it comes from? Thank you, Romaric Here is what is print before the

The distinction between the LLVMTargetMachine and TargetMachine classes has become somewhat muddy recently. So I created: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38482 to clean things up. During review it was noted that we may rather merge the two instead which looks like this: https://reviews.llvm.org/D38489 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D38489> We really should choose one of the two over the status quo.

Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the Common Code Generator are not generic. LLVMTargetMachine::addPassesToEmitFile explicitly checks whether the derived backend TargetMachine implements one of getMachOWriterInfo or getELFWriterInfo, and returns a

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:54 AM Hal Finkel via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 10/02/2017 10:57 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-dev wrote: > > The distinction between the LLVMTargetMachine and TargetMachine classes > has become somewhat muddy recently. So I created: > > https://reviews.llvm.org/D38482 > > to clean things up. During review it was

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:10 AM > To: Sumanth Gundapaneni > Cc: LLVM Developers > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMachine with optimization level passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth

> Currently, the MachO and ELF Writers and MachineCodeEmitters are > hard-coded into LLVMTargetMachine and llc. I am also interested in working on this area and interested in writting a COFF file backend. > In other words, the 'object file generation' capabilities of the > Common Code Generator are not generic. I was looking at making a parallel class to MachineCodeEmitter,

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

Hi all, Just to inform that we have an open position for a compiler engineer: https://www.kalrayinc.com/compiler-engineer/ The position is in Grenoble, France. Regards, Sebastien Sébastien Le Duc CoreSW Team Manager <http://www.kalray.eu/> kalray_logo Kalray S.A. <http://www.kalray.eu> www.kalray.eu Phone : 06 84 43 07 00 sleduc at kalray.eu Follow us

getOptLevel() gets the level from TargetMachine which is created by the Backendutil in clang with either "Default", "None" or "Aggressive". Threre is no correspondence for "Less". This boils down to , if I pass "-O1", the Target Machine is created with CodeGenOpt::Default. I am available on IRC @ sgundapa. -----Original Message----- From:

I like the idea of a generic MachineCodeWriter, although I prefer the name 'ObjectFileWriter'... I think we need to take a hard look at which bits of the Writer/Emitter infrastructure are needed for what tasks (Object File Emittion, JIT, etc.) and make sure that our abstractions are flexible enough... As it stands at the moment, the Writer and Emitter classes could definately be merged

Hi all, I am working on a target that has support for v4i16 vectors, and no support for v4i8 / v8i8 / v8i16 V4i8 is promoted to v4i16 which is nice V8i16 is split to 2 x v4i16 which is nice as well Now v8i8 is scalarized, which is not so nice. Ideally I would like v8i8 to be first promoted to v8i16 then split to 2xv4i16 (or split to 2xV4i8 then promoted to 2xv4i16) Is there a way to achieve

Hi, I found some different discrepancy on how Subtarget is created between some arch specific TargetMachine constructor. For example, for BPF/Lanai: BPFTargetMachine::BPFTargetMachine(const Target &T, const Triple &TT, StringRef CPU, StringRef FS, const TargetOptions &Options,

I want the optimization to be turned on at -O1 and above. In my case, it is a target independent back-end pass. (Eg: MachinePipeliner) On 2017-01-04 18:10, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Sumanth Gundapaneni via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with >> the

How do I tell clang to use my target CPU's assembler instead of my host's assembler? I found the -fuse-ld option to tell it to use my linker but didn't find an option for the assembler. Thanks. ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Craig Topper via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: Monday, March 25, 2019

Thanks, Paul. How do I generate the 'as'? When I look at the bin directory , there is an llvm-as that takes llvm assembly as input but no 'as'. ________________________________ From: paul.robinson at sony.com <paul.robinson at sony.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2019 1:58 PM To: mm92126 at hotmail.com; craig.topper at gmail.com Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: RE:

I checked recent revisions 138624 and 138620 and both produce this log with gcc-4.6.0 on FreeBSD-8.2-STABLE amd64: gmake[2]: Entering directory `/usr/home/yuri/llvm-svn/llvm-objects/lib/CodeGen' llvm[2]: Compiling LLVMTargetMachine.cpp for Release build /usr/home/yuri/llvm-svn/llvm/lib/CodeGen/LLVMTargetMachine.cpp:253:3: error: ‘AsmStreamer’ does not name a type