similar to: Help Building LLVM for Android

Hello all, I have written a pass, which replaces condition branchinst using indirectBr to obfuscate program. The origin IR is as the following: br i1 %1, label %2, label %3 And the transformed IR is as the follwoing: %4 = select i1 %1, i8* blockaddress(@func, %2), i8* blockaddress(@func, %3) indirectbr i8* %4, [label %2, label %3] The pass's core function is as the

With Debug mode, it shows the assert error: Assertion failed: (I != BlockLiveness.end() && "Predecessor not found"), function calculateLocalLiveness, file lib/CodeGen/StackColoring.cpp, line 782. 1. <eof> parser at end of file 2. Code generation 3. Running pass 'Function Pass Manager' on module 'busybox/archival/libarchive/decompress_bunzip2.c'. 4. Running

I've compiled rsync for my rooted Android (armeabi-v7a, 32-bit) device using these instructions: ``` clone_or_update rsync master git://git.samba.org/rsync.git cd rsync ./prepare-source ./configure \ --prefix=$INSTALL_ROOT/rsync \ --host=$AUTOCONF_PLATFORM \ CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -static" make -j8 && make install cd - ``` Best place for instructions to build I could find

I restarted rsync, and this has been sitting there for almost a minute, barely moved several bytes in that time: 2014/11/545b06baa3d98/com.google.android.apps.inputmethod.zhuyin-2.1.0.79226761-armeabi-v7a-175-minAPI14.apk 6,389,760 45% 18.76kB/s 0:06:50 I straced each of the 3 processes rsync created and saw this (note: every time there were several seconds of no output, I

Hi, We are rebasing our audio compression subsystem using OPUS rather than SPEEX. The platform is Android but this piece is written in C code: we need to support armv5/armv7/x86 architectures.... and we use the released opus-1.1beta package from here<http://downloads.xiph.org/releases/opus/opus-1.1-beta.tar.gz>. A lot of our OPUS build system + code to drive the audio compression has been

Hi Daniel, > Sebastian, this looks like it is most likely some kind of fallout from > your changes. Thanks for letting me know about these failing testcases. In the logs of the buildbot: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/llvm-gcc-build-x86_64-darwin10-x-mingw32-x-armeabi/builds/273/steps/run.build.step.configure_llvm_1/logs/stdio I see that the bot is configuring llvm with:

Hi again, I'd like to expand on the performance issues and plead for help. Here's one case which shows these odd hiccups: https://i.imgur.com/CXBPjTK.gifv. In this GIF where I switch back and forth between copy operations on 2 servers, I'm copying a 10GB dir full of .apk and image files. On server "hive" I'm copying straight from the main disk to an attached volume

On Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 3:11 PM, <spop at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > >> Sebastian, this looks like it is most likely some kind of fallout from >> your changes. > > Thanks for letting me know about these failing testcases. > > In the logs of the buildbot: >

Hi, I'm trying to squeeze performance out of gluster on 4 80GB RAM 20-CPU machines where Gluster runs on attached block storage (Linode) in (4 replicate bricks), and so far everything I tried results in sub-optimal performance. There are many files - mostly images, several million - and many operations take minutes, copying multiple files (even if they're small) suddenly freezes up for

Hello everyone, I'm wrestling with the LLVM unit and regression tests now and would like to discuss some changes to make. I will be preparing patches, but any input/ideas are welcome. I leave "where the tests should run" question out for the scope yet. Let's review what kind of tests we have and how to handle them correctly. We have 3 types of unit and regression tests: 1.)

I integrated libopusenc(version 0.2.1) to Android platform. but I collected some crash when opus encode destory. error backstrace as following: 1 #00 pc 0006828e /system/lib/libc.so (je_huge_salloc+133) [armeabi-v7a] 2 #01 pc 0006d303 /system/lib/libc.so (ifree+274) [armeabi-v7a] 3 #02 pc 0006d65d /system/lib/libc.so (je_free+72) [armeabi-v7a] 4 #03 pc 000025ef libopusenc.so ope_encoder_destroy

On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:11 PM, spop at codeaurora.org wrote: > I think that for JIT, the compiler should figure out what the host > is with a *runtime* check (i.e., the JIT should not use the info from > the configure flag --host.) That seems reasonable. Would you update this please? Thanks! -eric -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> > On Nov 4, 2011, at 3:11 PM, spop at codeaurora.org wrote: > >> I think that for JIT, the compiler should figure out what the host >> is with a *runtime* check (i.e., the JIT should not use the info from >> the configure flag --host.) > > That seems reasonable. Would you update this please? > Yes, I would be happy to find the best fix for this. Thinking a

I actually tend to agree with spop, it's cleaner to compute things at runtime than at compile time. One particular reason is wanting to pick the best target CPU for the current arch (which may not be what was compiled for). The current JIT target selection logic is really gross, I do believe that it tried to do this, but it probably needs some spring cleaning. Sebastian, can you try and take

Hi all, Thank you so much for this discussion. It has been very helpful and educational. I think that I understand the perspectives of both Tim and Renato. Let me briefly summarize them to ensure that I correctly understand: Renato’s perspective is that the triple means whatever the author says it does, and that may or not be meaningful. :) In the case of armv7l (for example) it has a clear

Hi, IMO we should support this, even though if given the option I'd have asked the linux guys not to invent a new triple. It's in linux now, and `uname -a` is a very standard way of obtaining the host's triple. James On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 at 08:34 Tim Northover via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On 4 January 2016 at 14:42, Artyom Skrobov via llvm-dev >

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,

On 26 November 2013 15:36, Rob Stewart <robstewart57 at gmail.com> wrote: > $ clang -v -target armv7a-linux-eabi -mcpu=cortex-a9 -mfloat-abi=soft > -mfpu=neon helloworld.c > Hi Rod, You need cross-binutils installed on your box. If you use Debian, there are packages (gcc-4.7-arm-linux-gnueabi and friends). Other distros may have similar packages, but you can always download the

On 13-07-18 8:12 AM, Dubois-Rande, Antoine wrote: > C:/android/android-ndk-r8e/toolchains/arm-linux-androideabi-4.6/prebuilt/windows/bin/../lib/gcc/arm-linux-androideabi/4.6/../../../../arm-linux-androideabi/bin/ld.exe: ./obj/local/armeabi/lib0.a(analysis.o): in function > run_analysis:jni/src/libopus/src/analysis.c:636: error: undefined reference to > 'optimize_framesize'

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello > "T2Divide" should be a subtarget feature bit. This way it can be > "automatically" assigned to the procesor. I agree this is a better approach. > The instruction selection patterns for t2{S,U}DIV should be also > guarded by this predicate. Is this necessary? Since the absence of the predicate causes lowering to expand