toolchain of LLVM. These are already being enforced by the build system
and have been discussed quite a few times on the lists, but
documentation is important. =]
Also, garbage collect the majority of the information about broken host
GCC toolchains. These aren't really relevant any more as they're all
older than the minimum requirement. I've left a few notes about
compilers one step older than the current requirement as these compilers
are at least conceivable to use, and it's better to preserve this kind
of hard-won institutional knowledge.
The next step will be some specific docs on how to set up a sufficiently
modern host toolchain if your system doesn't come with one. But that'll
be tomorrow. =]
llvm-svn: 202375
bits of software and to use a modern GCC version.
The Subversion bit was weird anyways -- it has nothing to do with
compiling LLVM. Also, there are many other ways to get at the trunk
source (git, git-svn, etc).
The TeXinfo thing... I have no idea about. But you can get a working
LLVM w/o it pretty easily. If man pages or something are missing, that
hardly seems like a problem. If folks really want this back, let me
know, but it seems mostly like a distraction.
I'd still like to separate this into:
- Required software to compile.
- Optional software to compile.
- Required software for certain *contributor* activities (like
regenerating configure scripts).
Also we need to mention that there are multiple options for build
systems, and the differences.
Also we should mention Windows.
Also probably other stuff I'm forgetting.
I'm wondering if this whole thing needs to be shot in the head and we
should just start a new, simpler getting started that doesn't have so
many years of accumulated stuff that is no longer relevant.
llvm-svn: 202373
getting started guide.
Some highlights:
- I heard there was this Clang compiler that you could use for your
host compiler. Not sure though.
- We no longer have a GCC frontend with weird build restrictions.
- Windows is doing a bit better than partially supported.
- We nuked everything to do with itanium.
- SPUs? Really?
- Xcode 2.5 and gcc 4.0.1 are really not a concern -- they don't work.
- OMG, we actually tried building LLVM on Alpha? Really?
- PowerPC works pretty well these days.
There is still a lot of stuff here I'm pretty dubious about, but I nuked
most of what was actively misleading, out of date, or patently wrong.
Some of it (mingw stuff especially) isn't really lacking, its just that
the comments here were actively wrong. Hopefully folks that know those
platforms can add back correct / modern information.
llvm-svn: 202370
Summary:
Fixes an issue where a test attempts to use -mcpu=x86-64 on non-X86-64 targets.
This triggers an assertion in the MIPS backend since it doesn't know what ABI to
use by default for unrecognized processors.
CC: llvm-commits, rafael
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2877
llvm-svn: 202369
any ranges - this includes CU ranges where we were previously emitting an
end list marker even if we didn't have a list.
Testcase includes a test for line table only code emission as the problem
was noticed while writing this test.
llvm-svn: 202357
If the SI_KILL operand is constant, we can either clear the exec mask if
the operand is negative, or do nothing otherwise.
Reviewed-by: Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard@amd.com>
llvm-svn: 202337
any ranges to the list of ranges for the CU as we don't want to emit
them anyway. This ensures that we will still emit ranges if we have
a compile unit compiled with only line tables and one compiled with
full debug info requested (we'll emit for the one with full debug info).
Update testcase metadata accordingly to continue emitting ranges.
llvm-svn: 202333
and update everything accordingly. This can be used to conditionalize
the amount of output in the backend based on the amount of debug
requested/metadata emission scheme by a front end (e.g. clang).
Paired with a commit to clang.
llvm-svn: 202332
This handles pathological cases in which we see 2x increase in spill
code for large blocks (~50k instructions). I don't have a unit test
for this behavior.
Fixes rdar://16072279.
llvm-svn: 202304
The current approach to lower a vsetult is to flip the sign bit of the
operands, swap the operands and then use a (signed) pcmpgt. psubus (unsigned
saturating subtract) can be used to emulate a vsetult more efficiently:
+ case ISD::SETULT: {
+ // If the comparison is against a constant we can turn this into a
+ // setule. With psubus, setule does not require a swap. This is
+ // beneficial because the constant in the register is no longer
+ // destructed as the destination so it can be hoisted out of a loop.
I also enable lowering via psubus in a few other cases where it's clearly
beneficial: setule and setuge if minu/maxu cannot be used.
rdar://problem/14338765
Patch by Adam Nemet <anemet@apple.com>.
llvm-svn: 202301
The aggressive anti-dependency breaker scans instructions, bottom-up, within the
scheduling region in order to find opportunities where register renaming can
be used to break anti-dependencies.
Unfortunately, the aggressive anti-dep breaker was treating a register definition
as defining all of that register's aliases (including super registers). This behavior
is incorrect when the super register is live and there are other definitions of
subregisters of the super register.
For example, given the following sequence:
%CR2EQ<def> = CROR %CR3UN, %CR3UN<kill>
%CR2GT<def> = IMPLICIT_DEF
%X4<def> = MFOCRF8 %CR2
the analysis of the first subregister definition would work as expected:
Anti: %CR2GT<def> = IMPLICIT_DEF
Def Groups: CR2GT=g194->g0(via CR2)
Antidep reg: CR2GT (zero group)
Use Groups:
but the analysis of the second one would not:
Anti: %CR2EQ<def> = CROR %CR3UN, %CR3UN<kill>
Def Groups: CR2EQ=g195
Antidep reg: CR2EQ
Rename Candidates for Group g195: ...
because, when processing the %CR2GT<def>, we'd mark all super registers of
%CR2GT (%CR2 in this case) as defined. As a result, when processing
%CR2EQ<def>, %CR2 no longer appears to be live, and %CR2EQ<def>'s group is not
%unioned with the %CR2 group.
I don't have an in-tree test case for this yet (and even if I did, I don't have
a small one).
llvm-svn: 202294
We should apply fastcc whenever profitable. We can expand this list,
but there are lots of conventions with performance implications that we
don't want to change.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2705
llvm-svn: 202293
COFF object files with 0 as string table size are currently rejected. This
prevents us from reading object files written by tools like cvtres that
violate the PECOFF spec and write 0 instead of 4 for the size of an empty
string table.
llvm-svn: 202292
We don't have any test with more than 6 address spaces, so a DenseMap is
probably not the correct answer.
An unsorted array would also be OK, but we have to sort it for printing anyway.
llvm-svn: 202275
