[LLVMdev] RFC: Bugpoint Patch

[Dale Johannesen]

On Feb 26, 2009, at 1:40 AMPST, Bill Wendling wrote:

> On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote:
>
>> On Feb 25, 2009, at 4:59 PMPST, Bill Wendling wrote:
>>
>>> I'm running into a problem where I need to have the "gcc" that's
>>> executed by "bugpoint" take certain arguments that aren't applicable
>>> to "llc". So, I came up with this patch, that adds a new flag
>>> "-gcc-tool-args". It's similar to "-tool-args" but passes the  
>>> command
>>> line arguments to gcc instead of to llc.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>> I like the new flag but I'm not sure changing that test is the right
>> way to fix this failure.  There is nothing inherent in that test
>> that requires it to be compiled 32-bit; it ought to work in
>> environments where llvm and the host compiler both target 64-bit
>> (and I think it does).
>
> I agree.
>
>> I think if you're going to change the test you need to add "target"
>> lines to the test to force it to be compiled 32-bit.
>
> Unfortunately, we don't have that mechanism available for C or C++
> files.

? the failing test is BugPoint/misopt-basictest.ll

>> The real problem is the llvm you're testing is out of sync with the
>> host compiler (for those following along at home, gcc defaults to 64-
>> bit codegen in the environment Bill is testing).  I think a better
>> approach is to  build llvm in such a way that it matches the host
>> compiler.  Of course that will expose other bugs....
>>>
>
> Maybe it's just a manner of having llc default to 64-bit codegen for
> the environment I'm working on. I think that it defaults to 32-bit
> right now. *checks* Yes, it does. And GCC is expecting 64-bit in that
> environment.
>
> Drat.
>
> -bw
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev