similar to: Proposal for O1/Og Optimization and Code Generation Pipeline

I'm trying to do a simple build from the git 8.0.0 sources. The sources seem to build OK but a link step fails from running out of memory. I need some clues how to figure out where the bottleneck might be. The cmake command is: cmake -G Ninja                                          \     -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86                         \    

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of JF > Bastien via llvm-dev > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2019 12:25 PM > To: John Reagan > Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Coding Standards: "prefer `int` for, regular > arithmetic, use `unsigned` only for bitmask and when you, intend to

Awesome start. Back when I did a similar project at HP/NonStop, the class of optimizations we turned off for our O1 (Og equivalent) tended to be those that reordered code or otherwise messed with the CFG. In fact one of our metrics was: - The set of breakpoint locations available at Og should be the same as those available at O0. This is pretty easy to measure. It can mean either turning

Hello, I'd like to introduce myself, my company, and our upcoming use of LLVM. My name is John Reagan. I've been working on compilers and assemblers since 1983 (yes, 31 years). Most of that time was spent on compilers for VAX/VMS (later renamed to OpenVMS), then OpenVMS on Alpha, and OpenVMS on Itanium. I've also worked with the HP NonStop platform and was directly involved

Yes. We currently build LLVM 3.4.2 on our OpenVMS Itanium box with an older EDG/Intel C++03 compiler to create legacy cross-compilers to our OpenVMS x86 box (well, VirtualBox). We do have a few tweaks to the relocations to access static data always through the GOT (including CodeGen's static data). Our linker sees references to code (which might be in 64-bit space) and creates trampolines

Hi All, I’ve been thinking about both O1 and Og optimization levels and have a proposal for an improved O1 that I think overlaps in functionality with our desires for Og. The design goal is to rewrite the O1 optimization and code generation pipeline to include the set of optimizations that minimizes build and test time while retaining our ability to debug. This isn’t to minimize efforts around

Hi Nick, It is a pleasure to be in contact with the creator of the compact unwind approach! I can see how an array of 32-bit unwind blocks could be used to describe each distinct point within a function (within a prolog in particular). But then you end up with six or seven or more such blocks for a large percentage of functions, don't you? Seems like a lot of additional space for something

Hi all, with this version, as in 4.0.5, i have always the windbind crash after wbinfo --uid-info 3000000 or ls -la sysvol/ my system 3.2.0-4-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.2.41-2+deb7u2 x86_64 GNU/Linux I already post here some information (no problem with 4.0.4, found last stable patch with bisect), could someone help me ? thanks and regards philippe > -----Original Message----- >

> > > > - Dead code elimination (ADCE, BDCE) > > > Regarding BDCE: The trivialized values might indeed be irrelevant to > later calculations, but might harm the debugging experience? If BDCE > only was applied at O2 and higher, that's likely not a huge loss. > Regular DCE (meaning without the bit-tracking parts) is probably fine > for O1. > > >

Hi all, I have two queries regarding WINE. 1) Is there support for VMS(OpenVMS) and MAC OS in WINE. I mean that can I install/build WINE over OpenVMS OS and MAC OS. 2) I have heard that WINE doesnot have support for WIN64 bit API's. Is this true that I cannot port WIN64 applications via WINE on Linux 64 bit. If this is possible for anyone among you then plz list the name of all the OS where

I've gone through the CVS commit log and tried to get every user-visible change since 2.4.6, so that we can make a proper announcement for 2.4.7. Please let me know if anything is missing/inaccurate. At this stage I'm planning to release two 2.4.7pre tarballs, one with the "large nohang patch" and one without. Some people inside VA will be stress-testing both, and so we can

I just installed Samba for VMS (1.9.17p4) on a DecServer 1000A running VMS 7.1 The University Network is primarily NT Server 4.0 SP5. My experience is with Netware and NT, not with VMS, but I have the luck of supporting the system..... My main question is about Encrypted Passwords.....Does this release of Samba support them, or do I have to modify the clients who want access to our Alpha to

As one of the OS' without current CMake support, I'm closely watching this discussion. We currently have LLVM 3.4.2 hosted on OpenVMS Itanium (as a host only, x86 target) using configure/make with little hassle. We plan to port CMake to OpenVMS, but that has been trickier than you'd think (others have tried, I haven't found anybody who has done it). Looks like I'll want to

Dear community, My company is interested in porting LLVM to OpenVMS. To do so, we need to look at extending the AMD64 calling convention to suit the existing calling conventions available on OpenVMS. We realize LLVM is a big and complex project and for some people who has not worked on it before, it's going to be a big and tough job that is going to take a lot of time. Still, the job has to

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 01:10:50PM +0000, Daniel Sanders via llvm-dev wrote: > It's my understanding that llvm-mc is intended to be a testing tool > for LLVM developers rather than an assembler for end users. Users > should be assembling with clang. Not all LLVM users are clang users. For example, we're using LLVM to build OpenVMS cross-compilers to x86 for our porting effort.

As part of our port of OpenVMS to x86-64, we are using LLVM with our own frontends on OpenVMS Itanium. We are writing a converter between our old backend's IR and the LLVM IR. We can cross-compile (hosted on OpenVMS Itanium) and link/execute on x86-64 CentOS. At present, we pass over 88% of our C test suite. Porting starts with being able to compile the code. Since we are stuck with a

Refer to this: https://legacyos.org/vsi-introduces-new-samba-release/ I noticed that VSI, the new owners of VMS, have created a package for Samba4 under OpenVMS. I also notice the samba-vms list appears to be abandoned (for years). So, I apologize for posting here on the general list, but it seemed fruitless trying the dedicated list. I am under the impression that the GPL v3 compels all

Hello, rsync.h is always including the syslog.h file, even though it is only used when the LOG_DAEMON macro is defined. Could someone change it to be as follows: #ifdef LOG_DAEMON #include <syslog.h> #endif OpenVMS currently does not have a syslog facility, so it does not have a syslog.h. Thank you, -John wb8tyw@qsl.net Personal Opinion Only

Here is our proposal to extend/enhance the x86-64 compact unwind descriptors to fully describe the prologue/epilogue for asynchronous unwinding.  I believe there are missing/lacking CFI directives as well, but I'll save that for another thread. Asynchronous Compact Unwind Descriptors Ron Brender, VMS Software, Inc. Revised January 25, 2018 1  Introduction This document proposes means to

Hello Djordje, Vedant, Thanks a lot for sharing information. I have a doubt, please consider the following simple test case- #include <iostream> int func(int* ptr){ std::cout << *ptr; return *ptr + 5; } int main(int argc, char** argv){ int a = 4; int* ptr_a = &a; int b = func(ptr_a); return 0; } commandline used -- bash$ clang++