similar to: clang 4.0.0: Invalid code for builtin floating point function with -mfloat-abi=hard -ffast-math (ARM)

On 22 March 2017 at 01:38, Friedman, Eli <efriedma at codeaurora.org> wrote: >> Small example fail.c: >> >> // clang -O2 -target armv7a-none-none-eabi -mfloat-abi=hard -ffast-math >> -S fail.c -o - >> extern float sinf (float x); >> float sin1 (float x) {return (sinf (x));} I changed your example slightly to make sure we're passing the

On 29 March 2017 at 02:33, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org> wrote: > sin/cos are libm functions, and so a libcall to those need to honour the > floating point ABI requests. The calling convention to be followed there > should match `-mfloat-abi` (that is, -mfloat-abi=hard => AAPCS/VFP, > -mfloat-abi=soft => AAPCS). Exactly, but they're not, and that's

Hi, I'm looking at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13204 which involves converting calls to sin and cos to sincos (when available) Initially I thought about transforming calls to sinf/cosf to sincosf. However, I don't think this is a legal transformation given that a declaration for a function called sinf is not necessarily the standard library function. Therefore it makes sense to

RFC: A proposal for vectorizing loops with calls to math functions using SVML (short vector math library). ========= Overview ========= Very simply, SVML (Intel short vector math library) functions are vector variants of scalar math functions that take vector arguments, apply an operation to each element, and store the result in a vector register. These vector variants can be generated by the

Hi Sanjay, For sincos calls, I’m currently just going through isTriviallyVectorizable(), which was good enough to get things working so that I could test the translation. I don’t see why this cannot be changed to use addVectorizableFunctionsFromVecLib(). The other functions that I’m working with are already vectorized using the loop pragma. Those include sin, cos, exp, log, and pow. From: Sanjay

Hi all, LLVM CodeGen and Tools team at Apple is looking for exceptional compiler engineers. This is a great opportunity to work with many of the leaders in the LLVM community. If you are interested in this position, please send your resume / CV and relevant information to evan.cheng at apple.com Thanks, Evan Job description The Apple compiler team is seeking an engineer who is strongly

On 22/01/13 05:30, Redmond, Paul wrote: [...] > I'm looking at http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=13204 which involves converting calls to sin and cos to sincos (when available) > > Initially I thought about transforming calls to sinf/cosf to sincosf. However, I don't think this is a legal transformation given that a declaration for a function called sinf is not necessarily the

On 25 March 2016 at 04:11, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > As I understand it, the fundamental property being addresses here is: Are the semantics of scalar FP math the same as vector FP math? TTI seems like a good place to expose that information. If the semantics are indeed different, then the vectorizer would require fast-math flags in order to vectorize FP operations

Hi all, I meet this problem when compiling the TREAM benchmark ( http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code/) with enable-misched The small function will be scheduled as good code, but if opt inline this function, the inline part will be scheduled as bad code. so I rewrite a simple code as attached link (foo.c), and compiled with two different methods: *method A:* *$clang -O3 foo.c -static -S

On Oct 14, 2013, at 3:27 AM, Zakk <zakk0610 at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > I meet this problem when compiling the TREAM benchmark (http://www.cs.virginia.edu/stream/FTP/Code/) with enable-misched > > The small function will be scheduled as good code, but if opt inline this function, the inline part will be scheduled as bad code. A bug for this is welcome. Pretty soon, I’ll

On 19 December 2013 08:50, suyog sarda <sardask01 at gmail.com> wrote: > It may seem that total number of cycles are more or less same for single > vmla and vmul+vadd. However, when vmul+vadd combination is used instead of > vmla, then intermediate results will be generated which needs to be stored > in memory for future access. This will lead to lot of load/store ops being >

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 01:23:03PM +0000, Renato Golin via llvm-dev wrote: > On 25 March 2016 at 04:11, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > As I understand it, the fundamental property being addresses here is: Are > > the semantics of scalar FP math the same as vector FP math? TTI seems like > > a good place to expose that information. If the semantics are indeed

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007, Dan Gohman wrote: >> > Intrinsics get added on demand. Generally there has to be a good reason >> > to add them. llvm.sin was implemented (for example) to allow generation >> > of code that uses vector sin operations. >> >> What is the criteria for adding an intrinsic or a built-in operation? >> For example, could the

On Tuesday 27 November 2007 06:01:34 pm Chris Lattner wrote: > > The main reason for adding intrinsics instead of just using C library > > calls is for support for vector types. @llvm.sin.* can be overloaded as > > @llvm.sin.v4f32, for example, which is very useful for some users. > > My question is "how can these be used" by people. Specifically, these > need

Xu Yang wrote: > Hi Nick: > > The first problem have been solved by calling llvm-ld: > > $ llvm-ld -o hellosin.llvm hellosin.bc -lm > $ lli -force-interpreter=true -load=/usr/lib/libm.so hellosin.llvm.bc > hello sin: 0.50 Only because the optimizer saw sin(constant) and folded it away. The entire program became 'print constant string'. There is certainly a bug

Hi Nick: Thanks for the response. You are right about sinf. I changed the constant to sscanf(argv[1], ...), and it gave me back 0 again. I also compared the disassembled code, and saw it was indeed the case. The primary reason I use interpreter is because I wish to do runtime checking on memory access pattern in multithreaded C programs. for example, if thread one is in the critical section, I

2) For lag in execution time due to floating point operations, it was clearly observed that gcc used floating point instruction FSQRT, where as clang seemed to use emulated function (?) BL SQRT. Note that we used the following flags for both clang as well as gcc compilation. -march=armv7-a -mfloat-abi=softfp -mfpu=vfpv3-d16 -mtune=cortex-a8 Infact, i was surprised to see that even when

Hi, I came across an issue where some optimizations that would normally be applied to standard math function calls are not getting applied when the –ffast-math option is enabled on the Clang command line on a Linux x86_64 target. I tracked down the issue to occurring because the –ffast-math option is triggering Clang to preprocess the math.h header file with the __FINITE_MATH_ONLY__ macro set

Hi, here's the canonical helloworld.c #include<stdio.h> int main() { printf("Hello World"); return 0; } In accordance with the cross-compilation LLVM documentation [1], I am trying to target the ARM on the Zedboard [2]. It is an ARM Cortex-A9. The machine I am compiling on is an x86_64 Fedora Linux machine, using clang 3.3. I am failing to generate an executable,

Hi Tim, > > cortex-a15 vfpv4 : vmla instruction emitted (which is a NEON instruction) > > I get a VFP vmla here rather than a NEON one (clang -target > armv7-linux-gnueabihf -mcpu=cortex-a15): "vmla.f32 s0, s1, s2". Are > you seeing something different? > As per Renato comment above, vmla instruction is NEON instruction while vmfa is VFP instruction. Correct