similar to: BUG: complete misunterstanding of the MS-ABI

Hmm, I'm not able to get those .ll files to compile if I disable SSE and I end up with SSE instructions(including sqrtpd) if I don't disable it. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > Is there something specifically required to enable SSE? If it's not > detected as available (based from the target triple?) then I don't think

Hi all, I think I found a regression in the shuffle instruction. I've attached a replacement of fibonacci.cpp to reproduce the issue. It runs fine on release 2.3 but revision 52648 fails, and I suspect that the issue is still present. 2.3 generates the following x86 code: 03A10010 push ebp 03A10011 mov ebp,esp 03A10013 and esp,0FFFFFFF0h 03A10019

Hello LLVMers, High order bit: Presence of a called function is causing a store on an unrelated vector to generate an aligned store rather an unaligned one despite unaligned store being indicated in the associated StoreInst. Details: I pulled down the latest source, so this is something I'm finding with the current LLVM. I'm hoping you'll have an idea what's

I have fixed a related bug: 52740. Can you check if that fixes this problem? Evan On Jul 11, 2008, at 6:43 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > I think I found a regression in the shuffle instruction. I’ve > attached a replacement of fibonacci.cpp to reproduce the issue. It > runs fine on release 2.3 but revision 52648 fails, and I suspect > that the issue is still

On Oct 18, 2007, at 1:52 PM, Chuck Rose III wrote: > > Here are the instructions for evaluateDependents. The JITter > hasn’t compiled foo yet. What’s confusing to me is why did my > movups suddenly become a movaps? All the stores and loads have > align 1 on them. Hi Chuck, I believe this is a bug but am unable to reproduce it with the test case you've provided. I

Hi, I'm new to LLVM and have some questions about using the JIT on Windows x64. I am aware that this is currently broken but am attempting to use the hack/patch proposed in this bug http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=3739. I checked out the revision the patch was created for (66183) and applied it but the assembler generated seems to fail whenever it reaches a movaps insctruction.

Hi all, The InstructionCombining pass causes alignment of globals to be ignored. I've attached a replacement of Fibonacci.cpp which reproduces this (I used 2.3 release). Here's the x86 code it produces: 03C20019 movaps xmm0,xmmword ptr ds:[164E799h] 03C20020 mulps xmm0,xmmword ptr ds:[164E79Ah] 03C20027 movaps xmmword ptr ds:[164E799h],xmm0 03C2002E

On 9.3.2015 20:43, lvqcl wrote: > Janne Hyv?rinen wrote: > >> VLC 2.2.0 crashed with exception 0xc0000005 on the first file I tried. >> But libflac itself does not, for example flac.exe and foobar2000 have no >> issues. > *Very* interesting. > > I suspect that flac.exe and foobar2000 don't use > FLAC__lpc_restore_signal_16_intrin_sse2() function at all. This

Hi Team, I observer that division of __int128 bit is very heavy operation. It internally call a routine '__udivti3', which internally call ' __udivmodti4'. Due to it the overall performance is much much slower (almost 15 time slower than if I do it via a combination of 64-bit or microsoft '_udiv128'). Also what to know if I can directly call below routine directly from

I'm trying to run the example described at: http://llvm.org/docs/DebuggingJITedCode.html I followed the sample command line session (below, with versions numbers for everything), but gdb doesn't stop at the breakpoints as described. Any idea what is wrong? Thanks, Zach zdevito at derp:~/terra/tests$ > ~/clang+llvm-3.4-x86_64-unknown-ubuntu12.04/bin/clang -cc1 -O0 -g >

(Changing subject line as diagnosis has changed) I'm attaching the compiled code that I've been getting, both with CodeGenOpt::Default and CodeGenOpt::None . The crash isn't occurring with CodeGenOpt::None, but that seems to be because ECX isn't being used - it still gets set to 0x7fffffff by one of the calls to 76719BA1 I notice that X86::SQRTPD[m|r] appear in

This patch supplies software IEEE floating point support. The comment from the patch reproduced below says all there is to say. This patch contains the prior "cleanup" patch; please don't apply that one. Please let me know of any bugs. It is tested reasonably well, but until I put together random tests it's hard to have 100% confidence. Neil. /* A self-contained host- and

Hola LLVMers, I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine instructions, but I'm most likely just doing something wrong and I'm hoping you can set me in

Reid Spencer wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 15:50 -0700, leo han wrote: > >> Hello, I have a question about the constant folding for fdiv instructions. >> For the instruction "fdiv double 0.0, 0.0", the folded result is inf. I >> think this should be nan. Can anyone tell me why it is not nan? >> > > I think the specification says that it is

On my test machine, in set_time_scale(), the following code: ts->mul_frac = div_frac(MILLISECS(1000), tps32); crashes with a division by zero error if tps32 == 1000000000d. Unfortunately, tps32 is often that value. Does anyone know why this happens? I''ve resolved it temporarily by checking for tps32 == 1000000000 and changing the value slightly (101000010d works fine on my test

Hi Bill, Comments inline: On 24/10/2011 9:50 PM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Oct 20, 2011, at 8:42 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I'm working on a graphics project which uses LLVM for dynamic code >> generation, and I noticed a major performance regression when upgrading >> from LLVM 2.8 to 3.0-rc1 (LLVM 2.9 didn't support Win64 so I

"David Greene" <dag at hpe.com> wrote: > Stefan Kanthak via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > >> "Michael Kruse" <llvmdev at meinersbur.de> wrote: >> >>> I think David is not referring to the capitalization of file names, but to >>> "DUPLICATE", "WASTING", "NOT AMUSED",

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote: > I'm looking to make use of the vectorization primitives in the Intel > chip with the code we generate from LLVM and so I've started > experimenting with it. What is the state of the machine code generated > for vectors? In my tinkering, I seem to be getting some wonky machine > instructions, but I'm most likely just doing

"Philip Reames" <listmail at philipreames.com> wrote: > Stefan, > > I can't tell if you're intentionally trolling, or are simply oblivious, > but to this observer you have clearly crossed well over the line of > acceptable behavior. Since you seem to have some experience in taking the point of view of a third person: do you find LLVM's

Hrm. This problem shouldn't be target specific. I am pretty sure prologue / epilogue inserter aligns stack correctly if there are stack objects with greater than default stack alignment requirement. Seems to be the initial alloca() instruction should specify 16 byte alignment? Evan On Jul 21, 2007, at 2:51 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Jul 2007, Chuck Rose III wrote: