similar to: Codegen difference between Asserts and No-Asserts mode

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

> -----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

I reacted as per my case. You need CFLAGS in order to what linker you might be using. In case of clang, you can use “-fuse-ld” to control the invocation of linker. In my opinion, it is not necessary to carry forward LDFLAGS unless you want to control specific parts of the linker. In my case, I have a cross compiler for ARM and I usually compile the code with Clang

On 28 July 2015 at 17:52, Sumanth Gundapaneni <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Android bionic libc doesn’t provide a __modsi3, instead it provides > “__aeabi_idivmod”. Hi Sumanth, Have a look at ARMSubtarget.h, functions: bool isTargetAEABI() They control the lowering of DIV/MOD calls in ARMISelLowering.cpp. Maybe Android needs to be in? cheers, --renato

Hi, AFAIK, the tools "symbolizer, objdump and nm" need a demangler. I see there is libcxxabi which provides the demangle library. But there is no support to build libcxxabi on windows with MSVC. This left a huge void and my symbolizer cannot work on Windows if built with MSVC. Instead of mucking around OS dependencies, why shouldn't we have a demangle library in LLVM.

Tim, How about the below option ? 1. Specify an existing generic armv7 CPU or the CPU which is close my custom variant. My custom variant can be treated as "cortex-a9" + hwdiv. So my CPU here is "cortex-a9" 2. Specify the ".arch_extension idiv" which is available as an extension for my custom variant. 3. Teach LLVM & Clang about your CPU's

Hi, I see there is an inconsistency in LLVM libc calls. For a modulo (reminder) operation, clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi generates "__modsi3". clang -target arm-none-eabi generates "__aeabi_idivmod" clang -target arm-linux-androideabi generates "__modsi3" Android bionic libc doesn't provide a __modsi3, instead it provides

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:

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 "-march=aarch64") I don't see "-march=aarch64" is a valid flag on either LLVM or GCC. Should we replace this

I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between

Hi, I wonder if this is a valid flag in either clang/gcc. The flag in question is "-march=aarch64". I verified with latest tip and neither clang nor gcc fail to recognize this flag. This piece of code is in cmake/config-ix.cmake in compiler-rt repo. + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") + test_target_arch(aarch64

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

Hi Hans, I have attached a unit test which demonstrates a hang/infinite loop with the opt built with release_36 sources. The fixes are already pushed to "master" branch. The revisions r226588 and r226616 should be pushed to release_36 to fix the unit test. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, I am observing a deadlock with llvm-lit on windows 7. When I attached a debugger, the communicate() call is blocked. In file utils/lit/lit/TestRunner.py > # FIXME: There is probably still deadlock potential here. Yawn. > procData = [None] * len(procs) > procData[-1] = procs[-1].communicate() I am invoking python directly on windows to run the unit tests.

Hi Rafael, I looked at the code which you pushed a while ago to check for the gold linker. Code below: execute_process( COMMAND ${CMAKE_C_COMPILER} -Wl,--version OUTPUT_VARIABLE stdout ERROR_QUIET) if("${stdout}" MATCHES "GNU gold") set(LLVM_LINKER_IS_GOLD ON) endif() I was trying to build runtime libraries (compiler-rt)

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

Hi, I am planning to add support to CMake so that the binaries of llvm will have a prefix appended to it. At this point, I am stuck on which approach to follow 1. Append the prefix during build and install time. If so, this might involve tweaking lit infrastructure to make sure lit picks the prefixed binaries. 2. Append the prefix only during install time. a. Either

On 10 December 2014 at 16:06, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > Hi Sumanth, > > Christophe (cc'd) is seeing the same problems on his build. It seems > that r181130 (by Tim) has something to do with it, but I'm not sure. > > I remember trying to build compiler-rt on AArch64 natively in > February, and even running the test-suite with it, so

I have legit requirement to keep the switch generated lookup table in function section. The lookup table is being generated in SimplifyCFG pass and is treated as a global. Is there a good way to mark these lookup tables and recognize them later to keep them in function sections. --Sumanth -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Divacky, I have an armv7 variant that supports hardware division (extension). For my variant, I use ".cpu cortex-a9" and division attribute(.eabi_attribute 44, 2 @ Tag_DIV_use) to let the assembler do the right thing if it encounters a division instruction. With your path, the .cpu directive is used to fetch the available features of a CPU and ignores the eabi attributes. What