On Thu, 2013-06-13 at 14:50 +0100, Richard Sandiford wrote:
>
The entirety of the comment looks pretty good to me. :-) One
question, and this is mostly curiosity on my part, I'm not specifically
asking for another revision.
> * (This is the same as C bitfield layout on most ABIs.)
Do w
Hi,
I'm starting to investigate mesa/llvmpipe on powerpc
(powerpc64/power7) and hitting some issues trying to run the tests found
in mesa/src/gallium/drivers/llvmpipe/lp_test_*. (lp_test_arit,
lp_test_printf, lp_test_blend all seem to fail in similar fashion.
lp_test_round passes, but does not
On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:07 -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> (gdb) info reg r3
> r3 0xfffb7f60010 17590977429520
> (gdb) info reg r10
> r100x7c0802a6f8010010 8937396376665391120
BenH points out to me that r10 value looks like code.
ppcdis 0x7c0802a6
mflr
On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 05:33 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Tue, 2012-07-03 at 16:07 -0500, Will Schmidt wrote:
> > > (gdb) info reg r3
> > > r3 0xfffb7f60010 17590977429520
> > > (gdb) info reg r10
>
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 07:52 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On 7/21/12 5:53 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > >> Hi guys
> > >>
> > >> LLVM 2.8 doesn't appear to have mcjit, so we end up with no llvm
> > >> libs
> > >> defined,
> > >
> > >
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:31 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 07:52 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On 7/21/12 5:53 AM, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > >> Hi guys
> > > > >>
>
On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 11:35 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
>
> - Original Message -
> > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 10:31 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > - Original Message -
> > > > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 07:52 -0700, Jose Fonseca wrote:
> > > > > - Original Message -
> > > > > > On
Hi,
RFC and consideration.. Specify MCJit for ppc64.
- Per commentary and direction in the llvm community, support for ppc64
is going into MCJIT rather than the old JIT. There is no existing
support in prior llvm versions, so no need to specify LLVM version
numbers.
Signed-off-by: Will
any case).
> But otherwise looks good to me.
Thanks!
I don't have commit access. Should I repost without the [RFC], or can
you / someone commit this change as-is ?
Thanks,
-Will
>
> Roland
>
>
> Am 04.10.2012 23:25, schrieb Will Schmidt:
> > Hi,
> &g
