similar to: [LLVMdev] CPUStringIsValid() into MCSubtargetInfo and use it for ARM .cpu parsing

Tim, How about the below option ? 1. Specify an existing generic armv7 CPU or the CPU which is close my custom variant. My custom variant can be treated as "cortex-a9" + hwdiv. So my CPU here is "cortex-a9" 2. Specify the ".arch_extension idiv" which is available as an extension for my custom variant. 3. Teach LLVM & Clang about your CPU's

On 29 January 2015 at 03:36, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: > These ought to be unneeded if you do 1+2 above. As far as I remember, .arch_extension does change the assembler flags to support whatever you set. Have you tried that? cheers, --renato

I have pushed the patch here: http://reviews.llvm.org/D7316 Review it and let me know. --Sumanth G > I have tried ".arch_extension" and it works perfectly fine for me. > I will move ahead and add the arch_extension framework to ARM. > > Thanks for your guidance guys. > --Sumanth G > -----Original Message----- > From: Renato Golin [mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org]

> How about the below option ? My options were mutually exclusive, or at least any one of them would allow you to assemble code using sdiv/udiv. You probably don't need to combine them. > 1. Specify an existing generic armv7 CPU or the CPU which is close my custom variant. My custom variant can be treated as "cortex-a9" + hwdiv. So my CPU here is "cortex-a9" > 2.

Hi All, Can anyone help me in making feed[xml/rss] generator for a webpage based on ruby/ruby on rails. Tell me if any ruby code is already available, to generate feeds for a webpage. Thanks in Advance. Sumanth. -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

Hi I would like to use clang to cross compile the ARM binary. I hope the target binary contains both arm and thumb instruction sets. I use the flag -mhwdiv=arm,thumb. I compiled several binaries. However, I found that the thumb mode instructions are few. Even for very big program like gcc. The number of thumb mode instruction is less than 100. I get the ground truth from the mapping table.

Here is a problem scenario. I want to enable a backend pass at -O2 or above. if (TM->getOptLevel() >= CodeGenOpt::Default) addPass(&xxxxx); This pass will be run at -O1 too since clang is creating the TargetMachine with CodeGenOpt::Default for -O1. --Sumanth G -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Friday, January 6, 2017

Hi, AFAIK, the tools "symbolizer, objdump and nm" need a demangler. I see there is libcxxabi which provides the demangle library. But there is no support to build libcxxabi on windows with MSVC. This left a huge void and my symbolizer cannot work on Windows if built with MSVC. Instead of mucking around OS dependencies, why shouldn't we have a demangle library in LLVM.

Hi, I see there is an inconsistency in LLVM libc calls. For a modulo (reminder) operation, clang -target arm-none-linux-gnueabi generates "__modsi3". clang -target arm-none-eabi generates "__aeabi_idivmod" clang -target arm-linux-androideabi generates "__modsi3" Android bionic libc doesn't provide a __modsi3, instead it provides

Hi, I wonder if this is a valid flag in either clang/gcc. The flag in question is "-march=aarch64". I verified with latest tip and neither clang nor gcc fail to recognize this flag. This piece of code is in cmake/config-ix.cmake in compiler-rt repo. + elseif("${COMPILER_RT_TEST_TARGET_ARCH}" MATCHES "aarch64") + test_target_arch(aarch64

Hi, I am observing a deadlock with llvm-lit on windows 7. When I attached a debugger, the communicate() call is blocked. In file utils/lit/lit/TestRunner.py > # FIXME: There is probably still deadlock potential here. Yawn. > procData = [None] * len(procs) > procData[-1] = procs[-1].communicate() I am invoking python directly on windows to run the unit tests.

I see the BackendUtil.cpp of Clang creates the TargetMachine with the optimization level based on below mentioned logic CodeGenOpt::Level OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Default; switch (CodeGenOpts.OptimizationLevel) { default: break; case 0: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::None; break; case 3: OptLevel = CodeGenOpt::Aggressive; break; } As per my understanding, the correspondence between

Hi, What is the guarantee that the codegen is same across Release and Release+Asserts build (except the known differences)? I assume there is no guarantee and it is possible to drop a bug like this. Personally I feel it is very expensive to debug and it depends on each scenario. Most of the bots test the Release+Asserts mode and any thoughts on how we can catch this sort of a problem

On 28 July 2015 at 17:52, Sumanth Gundapaneni <sgundapa at codeaurora.org> wrote: > Android bionic libc doesn’t provide a __modsi3, instead it provides > “__aeabi_idivmod”. Hi Sumanth, Have a look at ARMSubtarget.h, functions: bool isTargetAEABI() They control the lowering of DIV/MOD calls in ARMISelLowering.cpp. Maybe Android needs to be in? cheers, --renato

getOptLevel() gets the level from TargetMachine which is created by the Backendutil in clang with either "Default", "None" or "Aggressive". Threre is no correspondence for "Less". This boils down to , if I pass "-O1", the Target Machine is created with CodeGenOpt::Default. I am available on IRC @ sgundapa. -----Original Message----- From:

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Mehdi > Amini via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, January 06, 2017 11:10 AM > To: Sumanth Gundapaneni > Cc: LLVM Developers > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] LLVMTargetMachine with optimization level passed > from clang. > > > > On Jan 6, 2017, at 10:56 AM, Sumanth

Hi Hans, I have attached a unit test which demonstrates a hang/infinite loop with the opt built with release_36 sources. The fixes are already pushed to "master" branch. The revisions r226588 and r226616 should be pushed to release_36 to fix the unit test. --Sumanth G -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

I reacted as per my case. You need CFLAGS in order to what linker you might be using. In case of clang, you can use “-fuse-ld” to control the invocation of linker. In my opinion, it is not necessary to carry forward LDFLAGS unless you want to control specific parts of the linker. In my case, I have a cross compiler for ARM and I usually compile the code with Clang

Hi Renato, > On 13 November 2010 15:12, Duncan Sands<baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> I agree that it's limited. As for MC, it will need to handle these strings >> anyway since this is an existing LLVM feature (coming from gcc originally) >> that needs to be supported. > > Do you mean that LLVM-GCC generates build attributes as asm strings in IR? no, I mean

The following bot is broken: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/sanitizer-x86_64-linux-bootstrap/builds/4016 because of the following change (SVN r213684): http://reviews.llvm.org/D4614 But it seems to build fine on my machine... I don't know enough about CMake to tell, but that seemed to be a bug/feature in CMake to which needed the work-around. Now, just looks like the work-around is