similar to: About AVRDevice.td

Thanks! The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this should be simple. Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so on stored? -- Wilhelm Am 04.03.20 um 11:03 schrieb Dylan McKay: > Hey Wilhelm, > > This should be possible by editing the 'AVRDevices.td' [1]TableGen > definitions to add an entry for the newer chip types.

Am 04.03.20 um 11:16 schrieb Dylan McKay: > > The new are of xmega3 architecture, which is already included. So this > should be simple. > > Where is the information about ISR-vector table, SRAM addresses and so > on stored? > > > At the moment, this is not implemented in LLVM; these details are left > to the frontend. Clang/compiler-rt does not

I'm beginning to use the AVR backend. I ran into the problem, that newer (tiny1, mega0) µC as a tiny1614 are not supported. How do I add these to the AVR backend? Thanks!

Hello, I try to use Microchips MPLAB IDE 7.22 with wine 0.9.3 in contrary to the AppDB it doesn't work, it hangs during the first splash screen. When I try it with WINEDEBUG=warn+all the last message I get is: warn:gdi:GDI_GetObjPtr Invalid handle 0x62c I already registered all the .dlls as advised in the AppDB and also installed a gdi32.dll. Does anybody has an idea? Thanks, Dirk

I was browsing through Microchips' website and came upon their Speex library. They are charging for it and looks like it is also not open source. http://www.embeddedstar.com/press/content/2005/6/embedded18391.html scroll down to the paragraph about pricing. - farhan

Thank you for both of your input. Yes, I try to cross-compile for AVR, the simple ATMEGA328P used in every Arduino Uno. My main motivation being that I hope to be able to use a couple of STL containers, <functional> and <type_traits> on the MCU. Not sure though if this can be reached by going via the clang route. Getting back to the compilation: when I run clang with both both

Hi everyone, I've been wondering how to correctly build clang/LLVM for the AVR target architecture. Unfortunately documentation is very scarce (or outdated or I didn't find it) and while I've been able to build clang/LLVM for AVR I'm still falling short of compiling an actual binary for the MCU. Here are the steps I've undertaken so far: git clone

I am trying to install Microchip's MPLab package (a set of tools for working with PIC microcontrollers) with the latest Wine from CVS (at least, latest as of yesterday morning). I've been running Wine for a while, so I already have an existing Wine registry. I don't have a Windows install on the machine. The installer (InstallShield) unpacks, runs, and then pops up a dialog

Hello Leslie, I think we are going to need to know a bit more about the ELF ABI for what looks like the ArcCompact before we can help you. LLD's calculation of P (the place to be relocated) is as it is in the generic ELF specification. The Rel.Offset corresponds to the ELF r_offset field. This is covered by: "For a relocatable file, the value is the byte offset from the beginning of the

Hello, I have successfully build the newest llvm from git source, and I would like to do some experiments on target AVR. Does "make check-all" cover AVR? All I need some extra steps to test AVR? I have neither AVR simulator nor real AVR board connected. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi Leslie, On 20 December 2017 at 10:51, Leslie Zhai via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Sorry, I am apprentice of lowRISC, and meet new bug when porting GlobalISel > to RISCV target > https://github.com/xiangzhai/llvm/commit/b3f91ea54d9fee0ef7e73a32c6b8456bbe252811 > > > In file included from >

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:

Hello, I have successfully build the newest llvm from git source, and I would like to do some experiments on target AVR. Does "make check-all" cover AVR? All I need some extra steps to test AVR? I have neither AVR simulator nor real AVR board connected. Thank you. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 4:18 AM, Tobias Grosser via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 3, 2017, at 11:37 AM, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hey all, >> >> Every few weeks, a change is committed to trunk that breaks the AVR >> buildbot. >> >> A problem presents when commit authors do not fix the build, and just

How is the llvm-avr backend integration going ? Will it be functional ( experimental ) in the 3.8 release ? Will Clang recognize options for avr ? thanks. Allen -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20151218/be23dc42/attachment.html>

I think this is broken in at least one place when legalising the DAG. This llvm ir: %3 = call { i16, i1 } @llvm.umul.with.overflow.i16(i16 %2, i16 11) Fails to lower correctly on AVR but the problem is, unfortunately, not just coming from the AVR Target code and I am not sure it can be cleanly fixed just there. (But I would be very happy to be proved wrong as I'm very new to this.) The above

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

> On Feb 3, 2017, at 12:45 PM, Dylan McKay via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The builder isn’t marked as experimental so I think the expectation is that people keep it green and contact the bot owner if they need help figuring out why their change makes it red. That said, it sounds a bit odd to have a non-experimental builder for an experimental backend. >

Hi, There was a thread a few days ago about the expectations for experimental targets. At the moment, the only experimental target is AVR. It's been in the tree for a long time now, and generally seems well-behaved. Should we just make it a normal target? Nico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hey all, The AVR backend has now finally been merged in-tree completely. Thanks to Krzysztof and Matt for all of their hard work reviewing patches <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/query/AuHaJ3SXjDmO> Development will now halt on the downstream repository (on GitHub <https://github.com/avr-llvm/llvm>), and it will now be done LLVM proper. This is good news, especially for the