similar to: Does InitializeAllTargets when only some enabled ?

Hello, Can anyone help me with the default installation locations of CUDA headers in Windows and macOS ? e.g. /usr/local/cuda/include is the default for Linux. Thanks, Sanjay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170522/ca97c66b/attachment.html>

Hello, My system hangs every time during last stages of building LLVM ( starting at 95% in a CMake build ) using CMake or Ninja, sometime close to the linking of llvm-dysmutil. Could you please suggest tips that could speed up the compilation ? Thank You, Sanjay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello ! Does the x86 back-end generate gather-scatter instructions for LLVM gather-scatter intrinsics ? Also, do the NVPTX and AMDGPU back-ends generate equivalent instructions for GPUs ? Thank You, Sanjay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20170220/dc51b7cd/attachment.html>

Thank You Chen ! On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 5:21 PM 陳韋任 <chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw> wrote: > Perhaps you can refer to [1]. Function name should be a global one. > > [1] http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#identifiers > > HTH, > chenwj > > > 2017-06-22 16:35 GMT+08:00 SANJAY SRIVALLABH SINGAPURAM via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > >>

Hello, I'd like to know the format a function's name must conform to. Can I be pointed to LLVM documention that specifies the nomenclature for functions and other Identifiers as well (%registers, ModuleID etc.) ? Thanks, Sanjay -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I issued the following command to point the build to use clang and clang++, from a local llvm build directory included in PATH, instead of /usr/bin/{cc,c++}, cmake -DCMAKE_C_COMPILER=clang -DCMAKE_CXX_COMPILER=clang++ ../llvm_src The configuration failed with the error stating the compiler didn't recognize '-std=c++11' flag, whereas clang compiled a dummy c++ file with

Hello, I'm working on a project involving LLVM and keep shifting between the Debug and Release build by assigning different values to CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE in <llvm_build>/CMakeCache.txt and then building it. I wanted to know if this was a safe alternative to re-configuring the build after removing <llvm_build>/CMakeFiles/ and <llvm_build>/CMakeCache.txt. Thanks, Sanjay

Hello, One of my Julia programs failed to execute with the following error, DICompileUnit not listed in llvm.dbg.cu !11 = distinct !DICompileUnit(language: DW_LANG_C89, file: !3, producer: "julia", isOptimized: true, runtimeVersion: 0,emissionKind: FullDebug, enums : !12) This was generated by verifyModule(*GPUModule,&(llvm::errs())From whithin PPCGCodeGeneration.cpp in Polly.

On Sat, Mar 11, 2017, at 07:34 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > On Sat, Mar 11, 2017 at 3:10 AM SANJAY SRIVALLABH SINGAPURAM via llvm-dev > < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > One of my Julia programs failed to execute with the following error, > > DICompileUnit not listed in llvm.dbg.cu > > !11 = distinct

Hal, Tobias, et al. – I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far our best bet to make that happen. I have a couple of questions: 1) Integer constraint libraries like ISL (and Omega, which I used extensively in a previous project) are fundamentally solving

As the question asks, I'm having some trouble using initializeAllTargets(). I have a CMakeLists that uses: llvm_map_components_to_libnames(LLVM_LIBS ... AllTargetsAsmParsers AllTargetsAsmPrinters AllTargetsDescs AllTargetsInfos ...) However, even with these, when I try to compile my program, I get linker errors: CMakeFiles/sxhc.dir/src/main.cpp.o: In function

On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > Hi folks, > > I just committed a new backend for the Hexagon processor. After committing, I was able to successfully check out, build and test with the new changes. The x86_64 build on the buildbot is failing, however. Here's the build error: > > llvm[2]: Linking Debug+Asserts executable llvm-mc >

On 12/12/2011 4:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I just committed a new backend for the Hexagon processor. After >> committing, I was able to successfully check out, build and test with >> the new changes. The x86_64 build on the buildbot is failing, >> however.

On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > >> On 12/12/2011 4:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: >>> >>>> Hi folks, >>>> >>>> I just committed a new backend for the Hexagon

On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > On 12/12/2011 4:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: >> >>> Hi folks, >>> >>> I just committed a new backend for the Hexagon processor. After committing, I was able to successfully check out, build and test with the new changes.

On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > On 12/12/2011 4:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >> >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: >>> >>>> On 12/12/2011 4:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>>>> >>>>>

On 12/12/2011 4:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > >> >> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:36 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: >> >>> On 12/12/2011 4:28 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:12 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi folks,

I'm hitting this. Is there ETA for the fix? Evan On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:58 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote: > > On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:51 PM, Tony Linthicum wrote: > >> On 12/12/2011 4:49 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> >>> >>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:41 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On Dec 12, 2011, at 2:36

On Mon, Sep 4, 2017, at 20:49, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev wrote: > [tying to original thread] > > On 09/04/2017 01:37 PM, Adve, Vikram Sadanand via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hal, Tobias, et al. – > > > > I am strongly in favor of seeing a broader range of loop transformations, supported by strong dependence analysis, added to LLVM, and the Polly infrastructure seems to be by far

Thanks for the heads up Philip ! I did come across a strange case where LLVM allowed "%" to be a part of a function's name. This was in the context of my patch https://reviews.llvm.org/D33985, where I prefix the name of the source function and the Scop ( A special kind of Region that Polly can optimize, the name of the Scop is the name of the Region ) to the name of the PTX kernel