Displaying 20 results from an estimated 2000 matches similar to: "ABI change in LLVM 7.0.x release"
2019 Feb 05
2
[Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch
On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release. I have updated the
>> version and pushed a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427,
>> which is the only bug we will be fixing in this release.
>>
>>
2019 Feb 05
3
LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch
Hi,
The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release. I have updated the
version and pushed a fix for https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=39427,
which is the only bug we will be fixing in this release.
Since this is an ABI breaking changing and also we are introducing a
minor version for the first time, please take some time to test the
branch and make sure everything works as expected.
2019 Feb 05
2
[Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch
On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
>> On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via Release-testers
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> The release_70 branch is ready for the 7.1.0 release. I have updated the
2019 Feb 06
2
[Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch
On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:
> > On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > > > On 02/05/2019 08:07 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 07:36 -0800, Tom Stellard via
2019 Feb 07
2
[Release-testers] LLVM 7.1.0 release - Please test the branch
On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 14:09 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> On 02/05/2019 10:41 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 16:13 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
> > > On 02/05/2019 11:32 AM, Tom Stellard via Release-testers wrote:
> > > > On 02/05/2019 11:26 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2019-02-05 at 11:23 -0800, Tom Stellard wrote:
>
2018 Oct 01
2
Ubuntu LLVM packages incompatible with clang built projects?
On 09/29/2018 01:09 AM, Hans Wennborg via llvm-dev wrote:
> Trunk still has the different gcc and clang versions.
>
> What's worse, the 7.0.0 release has them too :-( I completely missed
> this and we can't fix it for 7.0.1 since that would also be an ABI
> break.
>
Is this something we could fix by adding a symbol alias to the
linker script for libLLVM.so?
-Tom
>
2019 May 10
0
LLVM 7.1.0 Release
Hi,
LLVM 7.1.0 is now available! Download it now, or read the release notes.
This release is an update to LLVM 7.0.1 with a fix for llvm.org/PR39427.
This bug caused some applications to crash to due to an ABI
mismatch for clang built applications linking against a gcc built libLLVM.so
or vice versa.
I order to fix this bug, we had to introduce an ABI change to libLLVM.so,
so unlike most stable
2018 Aug 03
3
[7.0.0 Release] The release branch is open; trunk is now 8.0.0
Hi Martin,
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote:
> $ git branch --list
> * master
> martino
By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a"
will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70".
If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will
2018 Aug 03
3
[7.0.0 Release] The release branch is open; trunk is now 8.0.0
On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 11:42, Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> A few months ago I switched from using SVN for the LLVM project to using the GIT mono-repo, but I am still not particularly good at using GIT. How can I use the GIT command-line interface to select to the exact same set of sources used for the v7.0.0 branch,
Do you mean the commit
2019 Feb 25
3
Why is there still ineffective code after -o3 optimization?
Hi,
I have some IR module from random generation (mostly ineffective
instructions).
It has a function with void return, and two function arguments where one
is a reference.
Therefore, I expect every instruction not altering the value at the 2nd
arguments address should be ineffective.
Here is the function definition (see below for full ll):
define void @_Z27entityMainDataInputCallbackdRd(double
2018 Aug 03
2
[cfe-dev] [7.0.0 Release] rc1 has been tagged
On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 3:38 PM, <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote:
> Hi Hans,
>
> I was just trying to push a release note about DWARF v5 support. I did:
> git checkout release_70 # in the monorepo
> git commit <update to llvm/docs/ReleaseNotes.rst>
> git llvm push
> but that fails. How do you want to do release notes?
I'm not familiar with "git
2019 Jan 10
2
Proposal for string keys for address_space
+cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 2:16 PM Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Stash a lookup table from integers to strings in Context and dynamically allocate integers for new strings. You can then keep integers in most of the code, writing/displaying strings for the integers with an entry in the table when writing to files or displaying.
>
>
2020 Jan 30
3
RFC: Switching from Bugzilla to Github Issues
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020, 10:22 Tom Stellard via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I want to restart this discussion. There seemed to be support for this,
> but we got held up trying to decide on the appropriate set of tags to
> use to classify issues.
>
> I propose that we move forward with this proposal and disable creation of
> new bugs in
2019 Feb 08
5
[RFC] Vector Predication
On Thu, Feb 7, 2019, 09:21 Simon Moll <moll at cs.uni-saarland.de> wrote:
>
> On 2/7/19 6:08 PM, David Greene wrote:
> > Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> >> So it would be handy for the vector length on evl intrinsics to be in
> >> units of the mask length so we don't have to pattern match a division
> >> in the
2018 Oct 22
5
[fdo] Code of Conduct questions
Hi,
I've cross-posted this to freedesktop@, as the xdg@ list is only used
for actual specification development.
On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 at 00:36, Jacob Lifshay <programmerjake at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi, we were thinking of asking if freedesktop would host Kazan (https://github.com/kazan-3d/kazan) for us, however some of our community members have objections with how freedesktop's
2019 Mar 25
3
GSoC- Speculative compilation support in ORC v2 , looking for mentors!
Hi Bekket,
Thank you for your reply. Earlier I came across a paper called "Dynamic
Look Ahead Compilation: Hide JIT compilation latencies", it devised some
methods for JIT compilation of functions before the actual call takes
place by using call graph analysis, branch probabilities to generate a
list of functions with high likelihood of execution in near future. In
my opinion it
2019 Sep 30
2
Adding support for vscale
I've posted two patches on Phabricator to add support for VScale in LLVM.
A brief recap on `vscale`:
The scalable vector type in LLVM IR is defined as `<vscale x n x m>`, to create types such as `<vscale x 16 x i8>` for a scalable vector with at least 16 bytes. In the definition of the scalable type, `vscale` is specified as a positive constant of type integer that will only be
2020 Jan 18
3
ORC JIT Weekly #1
Hi, Lang
As a starter using LLVM JIT to improve OLAP execution engine performance,
I'm very glad to hear that. I can't find some useful document help me get
start to use the new ORC JIT API quickly. Only can find some examples how
to use it, but don't know the internal from low level, and very blurred to
design a clearly JIT toolset. Hope more tutorials add in and help ORC JIT
more
2011 Mar 29
1
[LLVMdev] cross compiling to sparc with llvm
Hi,
I'm trying to use llvm/clang to cross compile to sparcv9. The following
works with a -march=sparc, but yields errors for sparcv9. Are there some
other flags that need to be specified?
Thanks,
Tarun
> clang -m64 -emit-llvm test.c -c -o test.bc
> llc -march=sparcv9 test.bc -o hello.s
ExpandIntegerResult #0: 0x8a6c478: i64 = GlobalAddress<[4 x i8]* @.str> 0
[ORD=1] [ID=0]
Do
2012 Jan 12
3
[LLVMdev] 'opt' Aborted "While deleting: void %"
Hey everyone,
So I have an LLVM pass that appears to run completely and work fine, and
then it aborts at the very end. When exiting the final runOnFunction call,
I get the following error / stack dump. I cannot figure out why this is
happening for the life of me - does anyone have any ideas? I'm not trying
to do any crazy deallocation or anything, it just seems like a normal pass
to me.