LLVM 2.9 Fails to Compile some CPU2006 Benchmarks on X86

Hi,

We are using LLVM 2.9 (with the llvm-gcc front end) to compile and run the SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks on x86.
We are compiling and running the benchmarks on a an Intel Xeon E5540 processor running Ubuntu 10.10 (64-bit version).

For the native x86-64 target, we are using the following command-line arguments:
-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2
and are getting compile-time errors on the gamess and tonto benchmarks.

For the native x86-32 target, we are using the following command-line arguments:
-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -m32

and are getting compile-time errors on gamess and tonto as well as run-time errors on gcc, cactus and povray.

Are these known errors?

If yes, are there any patches that fix them?

Are there any patches for LLVM 2.9 at all?
If yes, where can I find them?

Thank you in advance!
-Ghassan

Hi Ghassan, llvm-gcc is dead: the 2.9 release was the last release, so it is
unlikely that anyone is going to fix problems with it. Please use clang or
dragonegg instead. The development version of dragonegg correctly compiled all
of SPEC CPU 2006 last time I checked.

Ciao, Duncan.

Hi,

We are using LLVM 2.9 (with the llvm-gcc front end) to compile and run the SPEC CPU2006 benchmarks on x86.
We are compiling and running the benchmarks on a an Intel Xeon E5540 processor running Ubuntu 10.10 (64-bit version).

For the native x86-64 target, we are using the following command-line arguments:
-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2
and are getting compile-time errors on the gamess and tonto benchmarks.

For the native x86-32 target, we are using the following command-line arguments:
-O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -m32
and are getting compile-time errors on gamess and tonto as well as run-time errors on gcc, cactus and povray.

Are these known errors?

Not that I'm aware...

If yes, are there any patches that fix them?

Are there any patches for LLVM 2.9 at all?
If yes, where can I find them?

We don't create patches for previous releases. Our release time table is rather aggressive, so it's not really worth it to have a 2.9.1 when 3.0 would come out quickly afterwards.

-bw