similar to: Moving the AVR backend out of experimental

What do you see as the pros and cons of making it a stable target? Does anyone else have any concerns about doing so? -Chris > On Feb 14, 2020, at 7:59 AM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > +better dylanmckay address > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2020 at 10:58 AM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org <mailto:thakis at chromium.org>> wrote:

Am 04.03.20 um 13:28 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > * *The C/C++ function needs to be declared with either the calling > convention avr-interrupt or avr-non-blocking-interrupt.* Skipping > this step will cause regular ret instructions to be emitted for > return-from-subroutine, instead of the required reti for interrupt > handlers. ISRs also have stricter

Thanks Dylan, I am working on a backend which has mulhsu instruction that performs multiplication between signed and unsigned number and returns upper 32 bits into result register. I think I also need to write some code probably as you indicated to check signedness of the operands and based on that lower to mulhsu instruction. -Vivek On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 11:13 AM, Dylan McKay <me at

Hi Dylan, the following code volatile uint8_t v1; volatile uint8_t v2; __attribute__((interrupt)) void __vector_21(void) { v2 = v1; } produces in C mode: 00000092 <__vector_21>: 92: 80 91 61 00 lds r24, 0x0061 ; 0x800061 <v1> 96: 80 93 60 00 sts 0x0060, r24 ; 0x800060 <__data_end> 9a: 08 95 ret and in C++ mode: 00000074

> > Should we just make it a normal target? > My only remaining reservation here - the generic DebugInfo tests, which presumably due to an unimplemented 16-bit branch somewhere deep in the llvm-objdump callstack. The AVR backend passes virtually all of the LLVM test suite but these when avr-unknown-unknown is set as the default target. It feels like the inclusion of ~80 XFAILs for these

Hey Wilhelm, Could you post the LLVM IR generated from your C++ file? This can be achieved with 'clang -S -emit-llvm' Cheers On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 6:36 PM Wilhelm Meier <wilhelm.meier at hs-kl.de> wrote: > Answering partly to myself there was a extern "C" missing. > > But the register pushes ans reti are still missing. > > Whats wrong? > > Am

Hey Wilhelm, That's a bug, the "interrupt" attribute is not being recognized by the backend. I have fixed it in https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/339b34266c1b54a9b5ff2f83cfb1da9cd8c9d90a Pull the latest LLVM and it should be fixed. On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 8:00 AM Wilhelm Meier <wilhelm.meier at hs-kl.de> wrote: > Hi Dylan, > > I used the following

Hi Dylan, looks ok now. One thing: the ISR is now: __vector_21: ; @__vector_21 __vector_21$local: sei push r0 push r1 in r0, 63 push r0 clr r0 push r24 lds r24, v1 sts v2, r24 pop r24 pop r0 out 63, r0 pop r1 pop r0 reti There are unneccessary push/pops of r1 and r0 too, since the clr is useless ... GCC had the same

Hello LLVMDevs, I am looking for an example for how to lower LLVM IR to mulsu kind of instruction. I found that AVR back end have such instruction but AVRInstrInfo.td does not define any DAG pattern for which this instruction gets emitted. def MULSURdRr : FMUL2RdRr<1, (outs), (ins GPR8:$lhs, GPR8:$rhs), "mulsu\t$lhs, $rhs", []>, Requires<[SupportsMultiplication]>; Also

Is there anything I can do about it? BTW: gcc is loosing the AVR backend, so I would assume, there will be a greater interest to this in llvm compared to the past. Thanks, Wilhelm Am 03.04.20 um 15:09 schrieb Wilhelm Meier via llvm-dev: > Should I create an issue in bugzilla for this? Just to be reminded ... > > Am 31.03.20 um 09:34 schrieb Wilhelm Meier via llvm-dev: >> Hi

Hello. I was wondering if it is possible to implement placing RO variables within progmem sections. For now it is possible to just use [[gnu::progmem]] and read variables using assembly. My proposal is to: Use those variables as any other, without creating assembly. While reading them, compiler has all necessary knowledge where the variable is and can generate assembly Possible future

(resend to the list) And of course, just as I say that, my next ninja build shows the line only once. On reflection I am less sure that the lack of a [N/M] line means they are from the same invocation. Surely ninja could spawn two links, which then independently report "Creating library" after ninja emits the [N/M] lines. --paulr From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at

Since there's no "[2663/3121] " line between the two messages, the two lines are from the same link.exe invocation. I don't know why link.exe thinks it needs to print this line twice, ninja doesn't have anything to do with it. On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 6:57 PM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > I'm more concerned about seeing the message come out twice, which

On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> Hi Nico, >> >> Sorry for the delay, I've been OOO. The llvm-cov bot should produce >> reports for llvm-undname starting today. >>

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 10:50 AM Robinson, Paul <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > SCE tuning does turn on the .debug_aranges section. Our debugger team > really cares about startup cost. Turnaround time in general is huge for our > licensees, to the point where we support edit-and-continue (minimal > rebuild, live-patch the running process). > Ah, good to know! I'd

Hi, I got a forced update when pulling today. If I merge master to a local branch, I get a bunch of add/add conflicts. This same commit exists under several hashes: https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-20170507/commit/687841777ef505 https://github.com/llvm-project/llvm-project-20170507/commit/74725885552 Did someone push -f to the monorepo after doing branch surgery? Maybe there was a

On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 2:11 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 6, 2019, at 9:56 AM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 1:33 PM <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > >> >> >> On Jun 4, 2019, at 4:41 PM, Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 2:06 PM <vsk at

Hi, building 'check-all' on any of my machines running OS X 10.10 usually fails because a few tests fail due to some processes being killed by the kernel (there's always "Killed: 9" somewhere in lit's error output). Everything's fine on 10.9. How do folks deal with this? Don't use 10.10 for building llvm? Is there some tweakable to tell the kernel "please

On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:57 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:42 PM Nico Weber <thakis at chromium.org> wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 3:32 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 12:07 PM Nico Weber via cfe-dev < >>> cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hey Nico, I'm actually not sure where the configurations for that bot are stored. I suspect Duncan may have a better idea. I'm reasonably certain that the missing +x is just an oversight. -Chris > On May 30, 2019, at 6:24 PM, Nico Weber via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Vedant or Chris: Ping :) > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:56 AM Nico Weber