similar to: Swift Test Suite

On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Hal Finkel via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" > <matze at braunis.de>, "Clang Dev" <cfe-dev

On 2 March 2016 at 19:01, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > Also, just a quick question. I’m happy to continue to talk about the actual > design and implementation of LLVM IR on this point, and I’d be happy to > put out the actual patch we’re initially proposing. Obviously, all of this code > needs to go through the normal LLVM/Clang code review processes. But >

** NOTE: This is a compiler job announcement. ** The Apple Source Languages team is looking for exceptional engineers to work on the Swift programming language: https://developer.apple.com/swift These open positions are for engineers who want to work as an integral part of the core Swift language team to help shape the future of the language. All positions are based onsite at Apple's

On 12 October 2016 at 15:05, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > This is something we need to understand. No, there's not always an error bar. With FMA formation and without non-IEEE-compliant optimizations (i.e. fast-math), the optimized answer should be identical to the non-optimized answer. What about architectures that this is never respected, like Darwin? In the general

On 14 October 2016 at 15:50, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > These 3 tests are passing with the following configurations: > -O3 -ffp-contract=off > -O3 -ffp-contract=on > -O0 -ffp-contract=off > -O0 -ffp-contract=on > > They are not passing at: > -Ofast -ffp-contract=on > -Ofast -ffp-contract=off Let's separate completely FP-contract and

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> >> To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>,

Hi, I would like to provide a summary of the different proposals on how to fix the test-suite to make it succeed when specifying extra CFLAGS "-Ofast" and "-ffp-contract=on". I would like to expose the issue and proposed ways to fix it to other potential reviewers that could provide extra feedback. We also need to decide which proposal (or combination of) to implement and

> On Oct 7, 2016, at 5:56 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com <mailto:sebpop.llvm at gmail.com>> >> To: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org <mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> >> Cc: "Kristof

Hi, I would need some help to fix polybench/symm: void kernel_symm(int ni, int nj, DATA_TYPE alpha, DATA_TYPE beta, DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(C,NI,NJ,ni,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(A,NJ,NJ,nj,nj), DATA_TYPE POLYBENCH_2D(B,NI,NJ,ni,nj)) { int i, j, k; DATA_TYPE acc; /* C := alpha*A*B + beta*C, A is symetric */ for (i = 0; i < _PB_NI; i++) for (j = 0; j < _PB_NJ; j++) {

On 12 October 2016 at 14:26, Sebastian Pop <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> wrote: > Correct me if I misunderstood: you would be ok changing the > reference output to exactly match the output of "-O0 -ffp-contract=off". No, that's not at all what I said. Matching identical outputs to FP tests makes no sense because there's *always* an error bar. The output of O0, O1, O2,

On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:36 PM, C. Bergström <cbergstrom at pathscale.com> wrote: > On 06/11/14 06:58 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote: >> ** NOTE: This is a compiler job announcement. ** >> >> The Apple Source Languages team is looking for exceptional engineers to work on the Swift programming language: > Maybe this has been asked already and I missed it - Will Swift be open

On 06/11/14 08:39 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 1:44 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com > <mailto:kremenek at apple.com>> wrote: > > On Jun 10, 2014, at 5:36 PM, C. Bergström > <cbergstrom at pathscale.com <mailto:cbergstrom at pathscale.com>> wrote: > > > On 06/11/14 06:58 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote: >

This buildbot appears to have been failing for several weeks now ( http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-ppc64-elf-linux2/builds/19490 ). Does anyone know/own/care about it? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org> Date: Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:17 PM Subject: buildbot failure in LLVM on clang-ppc64-elf-linux2 To: Aaron Ballman <aaron at

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at linaro.org> > To: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, > "Matthias Braun" <matze at

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 2:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > > On 2 March 2016 at 20:03, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> We don’t need to. We don't use the intermediary convention’s rules for aggregates. >> The Swift rule for aggregate arguments is literally “if it’s too complex according to >> <foo>, pass it

> On Mar 2, 2016, at 11:33 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 2 March 2016 at 18:48, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> The frontend will not tell the backend explicitly which parameters will be >> in registers; it will just pass a bunch of independent scalar values, and >> the backend will assign them to registers or the stack

On Tue, 2015-09-29 at 14:29 -0500, Hal Finkel wrote: > [+Bill and Bill] > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Blaikie via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 12:39:02 PM > > Subject: [llvm-dev] Fwd: buildbot failure in LLVM on

On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 5:02 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Sebastian Pop" <sebpop.llvm at gmail.com> >> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> >> Cc: "Sebastian Paul Pop" <s.pop at samsung.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias

> On Mar 3, 2016, at 10:06 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 3 March 2016 at 17:36, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> I’m not sure of your point here. We don’t use the Swift CC to call C functions. >> It does not matter, at all, whether the frontend lowering of an aggregate under >> the Swift CC resembles the frontend