similar to: PPC little endian?

<div class="socmaildefaultfont" dir="ltr" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:9pt" ><div dir="ltr" >Hi all,</div> <div dir="ltr" >I'm very excited to be able to share this with everyone. </div> <div dir="ltr" > </div> <div dir="ltr" >IBM announced this

Hello, I was trying to compile a simple program with the CppBackend like so: $ clang str_arg.c -emit-llvm -S $ llc -march=cpp str_arg.ll It produces a file `str_arg.cpp` as expected, however it doesn't seem that the resulting file is correct. For once, it includes `<llvm/Analysis/Verifier.h>` which seems to have been moved to `llvm/IR/Verifier.h` as far back as 2013. My question is

I found a bit weird to use address space for this, since the offset of getting stack_guard in TCB is, unfortunately, negative: https://github.com/gcc-mirror/gcc/blob/master/gcc/config/rs6000/linux64.h#L610 In my understanding an address space is referring to a segment register (-on powerpc 32bit; or SLB entry on powerpc 64bit?) with a non-negative offset value, so that it's actually accessing

Yes, it's quite obviously dead and should be deleted. When I brought this up last time -- after realizing that it wasn't actually a backend that targetted c++ (which might be useful), but rather just something that emitted IR by calling llvm C++ functions (which really isn't IMO) -- someone also pointed out that it also really ought to be using IRBuilder...if anyone cared about it.

> after realizing that it wasn't actually a backend that targetted c++ > (which might be useful) Exact same thing just happened to me.. it's not obvious, especially when reading the llc info: $ llc -version Registered Targets: arm - ARM arm64 - ARM64 (little endian) cpp - C++ backend x86 - 32-bit X86: Pentium-Pro and above x86-64

Hi All, We have recently found some optimization opportunities created by replicating code into branches in order to enable optimization. In general, the optimization opportunity we are pursuing is like the following. Given pseudo-code: // block A if (some condition) // block B // block C If it can be efficiently proven that some portion of block C can be simplified had control flow not

There was, a long time ago, a backend that actually targetted C. It was deleted in 2012 at r153307. On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > after realizing that it wasn't actually a backend that targetted c++ > (which might be useful) > > Exact same thing just happened to me.. it's not obvious, especially when > reading

Hello, I'm trying to create a pure LLVM toolchain (that will not depend on GNU and produce GNU-free code too) on a musl based distribution. For now, I use gcc to bootstrap and build all LLVM components. I do it individually because I was running out of space and memory trying to build all using LLVM_ENABLE_PROJECTS. Also, I don't want to create a all-in-one package. Then, once

I upgraded my versions of llvm, clang and compiler-rt to the top-of-tree versions from last night (r180162, April 24). I recompiled debug versions of llvm, clang and my code. I then regenerated my test case and the results were the same - I can list lines of dwarf1.lsp in lldb but I can't set break-points or do anything else (what else should I be able to do?). The updated file that

One other thing that may or may not illuminate the situation. When I run under gdb (on OS X 10.8.3 this is an ancient version of gdb 6.3.5 - but it works with clang compiled C++ code) I get the following error when I try to list a line in dwarf1.lsp: Dwarf Error: Cannot handle DW_FORM_<unknown> in DWARF reader [in module /Users/meister/Development/cando/src/tests/core/dwarf1.bundle] (gdb)

Hi everyone, The OpenMP standards committee has begun work to formalize their memory model, and define its relationship to the C/C++ memory models. A questionnaire has been put together (pasted below), and I'd like everyone's help in composing detailed answers to inform their decision-making process. While our OpenMP support is still in active development, many of these questions apply

$ grep dove /etc/passwd /etc/group /etc/passwd:_dovecot:*:214:6:Dovecot Administrator:/var/empty:/usr/bin/false /etc/passwd:_dovenull:*:227:227:Dovecot Authentication:/var/empty:/usr/bin/false /etc/group:certusers:*:29:root,_jabber,_postfix,_cyrus,_calendar,_dovecot /etc/group:_dovenull:*:227: I'm trying to build on osx so I can try to do some debugging. The INSTALL.md says to do: $ more

OSX 10.13.6 High Sierra, dovecot 2.3.2.1 dovecot starts up and runs but dies as soon as my mail client makes a request with log and config below. And advice appreciated. Thanks Mike 20180810-083730 auth: Debug: auth client connected (pid=77432) 20180810-083730 auth: Debug: client in: AUTH??? 1??? PLAIN service=imap??? secured??? session=xo1p2BRzZNd/AAAB lip=127.0.0.1??? rip=127.0.0.1???

Maybe an old problem that has resurfaced??? https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=8773 Mike On 8/10/18 10:54, Aki Tuomi wrote: > I have to see if this is reproducible outside mac. > > > > --- > Aki Tuomi > Dovecot oy > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Mike Makuch <1mikemakuch at gmail.com> > Date: 10/08/2018 18:46 (GMT+02:00) > To:

I found and tried this work around on the man page: https://www.unix.com/man-page/all/5/ngroups_max/ but I still get the same "Too many extra groups" error even when I start dovecot with the above program to limit the # of groups. I suspect that dovecot is adding a number of groups when it starts up. I've hacked a work around to get it working for me on my laptop: diff --git

Hmm, are you using a version of LLVM with asserts enabled (I.e. A debug build)? I cut-and-paste your IR into a text file and ran (a debug version of) llc on it, which caused the following assertion failure that seems related to some DWARF mishap: llc: ../lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/DwarfDebug.cpp:1400: void llvm::DwarfDebug::beginFunction(const llvm::MachineFunction*): Assertion `TheCU &&

Hello, would it be possible to update config.sub and config.guess to the latest versions (or at least version from automake-1.13.1) in order to support new architectures based on the ARM 64 bit CPU? Patch: http://plautrba.fedorapeople.org/openssh/openssh-latest-config.sub-config.guess.patch Related Fedora bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=926284 Thanks, Petr

Hi, Thanks for your help! I've checked the sources that you mentioned. Currently, I think that I would need to implement a FunctionToLoopNestPassAdaptor which is essentially the same as the FunctionToLoopPassAdaptor but operates only on LI.getTopLevelLoops(). We might also need a LNPMUpdater (LoopNestPassManagerUpdater) which disallows adding inner-loops back into the pipeline, and

Hi all, Thanks for Aleksandar Beserminji great job: https://reviews.llvm.org/D50437 It is not easy to reproduce the LLVMBUG-38221[1] by building OpenJDK8, it needs some workaround https://raw.githubusercontent.com/xiangzhai/jdk8u-dev/master/Workaround-compile-with-llvm.patch LLVM toolchain[2] is just able to compile OpenJDK8 for mips64el now: http://hg.loongnix.org/ 1.

Hi HotSpot and LLVM developers, I am building OpenJDK8[1] with LLVM toolchain[2] for mips64el, it failed to build: /home/loongson/jdk8-mips/hotspot/src/share/vm/opto/lcm.cpp:52:35: error: ordered comparison between pointer and zero ('address' (aka 'unsigned char *') and 'int') if (Universe::narrow_oop_base() > 0) { // Implies UseCompressedOops.