similar to: [LLVMdev] Validating a new release

Hi, A64 versus A32/T32 code generation is controlled by the -target option which I don’t believe is under discussion here. James On 18 May 2016, at 13:17, Bruce Hoult <bruce at hoult.org<mailto:bruce at hoult.org>> wrote: Note that armv8a modifies the A32 and T32 instruction sets, and is therefore an important -march option for 32 bit code. Therefore armv8a can not be used to imply

On 5 May 2016 at 13:01, Bradley Smith <Bradley.Smith at arm.com> wrote: > Allowing -march=aarch64/arm64 is somewhat misleading I think, -march is used > for specifying an architecture version to target whereas aarch64/arm64 don’t > convey any information to that effect, does it mean armv8a, armv8.1-a, etc? Hi Bradley, That's a good point. But also, what does "armv8a"

Hi everyone, I'm a member engineer of linaro's llvm team,coming from Spreadtrum.I am a new person on LLVM.Now I'm writing a Target Parser for AArch64,so options parsing of AArch64 about cpu & arch & fpu can be summary to one place. In the TargetParser,we assume "aarch64" and "arm64" are synonyms of armv8a(as they are only for armv8a,people usually do

Hi On AArch64 (ARM 64-Bit Platform), I see there is an inconsistency in the values accepted by -march option between clang and llc. --- $ llc -march=aarch64 -mattr=help 2>&1 | grep error $ #No Error $ llc -march=armv8a -mattr=help 2>&1 | grep error llc: error: invalid target 'armv8a'. $ clang -march=armv8a -E - < /dev/null 2>&1 | grep error $ #No Error $

Thanks for everyone giving their feedback! I saw pretty unanimous support for making -mcpu=generic the default and making -mcpu=generic schedule for an in-order CPU (Cortex-A8 in this case). I'll be making those changes shortly. I think the comments also make clear that it's less obvious whether we'd want -mcpu=native to become a default. It's probably good for some use cases, but

On 25 November 2014 at 10:11, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 25 November 2014 at 09:39, Jonathan Lennox <jonathan at vidyo.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations

Hi Tim, 2014-06-25 15:26 GMT+08:00 Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com>: > Hi Kevin, > > I assume you've looked at the GCC documentation in this area, since > your ideas are very similar: > https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/AArch64-Options.html. I actually > think that looks like a rational set of conventions too. > > The main difference appears to be

Motivation At the moment, when targeting armv7a, clang defaults to generate code as if -mcpu=cortex-a8 was specified. When targeting armv8a, it defaults to generate code as if -mcpu=cortex-a53 was specified. This leads to surprising code generation, by the compiler optimizing for a specific micro-architecture, whereas the intent from the user was probably to generate code that is

On Nov 25, 2014, at 10:07 AM, Viswanath Puttagunta <viswanath.puttagunta at linaro.org> wrote: > > > Also is there plans to make the NEON optimisations on ARMv7 run time > > detectable like they have in cairo/pixman? For generic distributions > > it would nice to be able to be able to enable them as they offer > > decent performance improvements but have the code

I recently got a tegra TK1 and was curious how fast it was compared to my previous arm "build machine": the original arm Samsung chromebook. I timed running ninja to build just llvm in Release+Asserts using clang as the host compiler. chromebook: real 84m30.939s user 163m50.145s sys 4m0.100s TK1: real 34m7.376s user 132m44.417s sys 3m3.543s A really nice

Hi Renato, Are you sure? Armv8-a is aarch32, not aarch64. Something smells fishy there. Cheers, James On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 at 08:03, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 16 December 2014 at 20:29, Christophe Lyon > <christophe.lyon at linaro.org> wrote: > >> I don't see "-march=aarch64" is a valid flag on either LLVM or GCC. >

Hi, Right. I'm aware of that. But to Clang, "armv8-a" as an architecture is ARMv8/AArch32. Unless Clang has recently got a lot cleverer than it has been in the past. James On Thu Dec 18 2014 at 9:06:04 AM Christophe Lyon <christophe.lyon at linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 December 2014 at 09:07, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> > wrote: > > Hi Renato,

On 25 June 2014 12:58, James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk> wrote: > This is one of the worst parts about the Clang CLI for cross compilation at > the moment. I'd really like, if we're changing the CLI, to allow users to > remove it. For example, if I specify -march=armv7-a, it *shouldn't* need me > to put "-target arm" before it to work! Good lord,

On 16 December 2014 at 21:12, Gundapaneni, Sumanth <sgundapa at quicinc.com> wrote: > The point here is, if you are not building for Android. > You will hit this patch with cmake configuration -DCOMPILER_RT_TEST_TRIPLE=aarch64-linux-gnu > > + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") > + test_target_arch(aarch64

Hello, I’m using NXP layerscape Arch (A53/A72), and I want to use NE 10 Project library , and llvm compiler 3.8.1.1 (https://projectne10.github.io/Ne10/) <https://projectne10.github.io/Ne10/> When compiling the project file I get the following errors : ./NE10_abs.asm.s:59:9: error: unrecognized instruction mnemonic vmov s2, r3 ^ ../NE10_abs.asm.s:62:9: error:

Hello everyone, The review http://reviews.llvm.org/D20951 implements initial support for the ARM architecture in LLD. To keep the patch size down, and to avoid the complexities of interworking between ARM and Thumb, there is just enough support for an ARM only Hello World to link and run on ARM Linux [*]. My main aim is to get this functionality committed as the basis of an ARM port and would

Hi all, Actually,I found there is a same problem for arm.For this case,I think > maybe we can play a trick in the clang. > Checking whether the given arch valid or not,before we throw it to the > parser,which can be used for both arm > and aarch64. For the actions I mentioned above,I wrote a check function as below, basing on the naming rules of the arm architecture. +//Only if

Joerg, Referring to your patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291172. / switch (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType()) {// // case ExceptionHandling::SjLj:// // case ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI:// // case ExceptionHandling::ARM:// //*isCFIMoveForDebugging = true;*// //*if (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType() != ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI)*/*/ /**/ break;/*/ // for (auto &F:

Hello, We're evaluating memory tagging (MTE) on some internal workloads. We noticed that stack variables are tagged by an instrumentation pass and heap objects are handled by the allocator (Scudo). How about global variables? We tried a simple case using -march=armv8a+memtag -fsanitize=memtag, but found no tagging: Are we missing anything or tagging globals is still in progress? int

Hi Everyone, I'm working Chromium targeting Windows on ARM64 platform. As a part of this work I ran into an issue related to llvm in Swiftshader. Currently fixup_aarch64_movw relocation type is not supported for COFF ARM64 (AArch64WinCOFFObjectWriter). As far as I see, Microsoft hasn't defined indicator for this relocation type. I haven't seen documented anywhere. For AArch32