Re: [avr-llvm-devel] Regression tests

[Nicklas Bo J. <nbj...@gm...>]

Thanks for the explanation. It's clear :)

Out of curiosity, why are the pushes and pops in the example below? movw
leaves r17:r14 unchanged. Do we simply push and pop all registers to be on
the safe side and limited static analysis?

llvm:
define i32 @return32_arg2(i32 %x, i32 %y, i32 %z) {
   ret i32 %z
}

asm:
return32_arg2:
push r14
push r15
push r16
push r17
movw r23:r22, r15:r14
movw r25:r24, r17:r16
pop r17
pop r16
pop r15
pop r14

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:

> Here you have a link that explains how registers are used:
> www.nongnu.org/avr-libc/user-manual/FAQ.html#faq_reg_usage
> Testing a calling convention without knowing how it actually works is
> going to be an insane task to do xD
>
> About your question, when you read that link all will become clear but
> basically here is what's going on. Arguments are passed from r25 down to
> r8, since in this case three 64bit args can't fit in those registers the
> last argument is passed through the stack, so you get:
> arg1 is in: r25-r18
> arg2 is in: r17-r10
> arg3 obviously doesn't fit in 2 register so it's all passed through the
> stack, thats why you get those loads. Notice that the lowest part of the
> argument is in Y+5 because in +4 and +3 is r29:r28 you just pushed and in
> +2 +1 is the the return address that was pushed into the stack after the
> call was performed.
>
> Another thing, you should add checks on the pushes and pops for the callee
> saved registers so we're sure that they're being saved.
>
>
>
> 2012/5/22 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>
>> Perfect :)
>>
>> I'm moving on to calling convention and have started with return values.
>> However I'm a bit unsure what the calling convention actually is. For
>> example with my last test, called "return64_arg2" in the attached .ll file
>> and the generated assembly in the .s file, is the correct thing happening
>> and how it should be tested? Couldn't we have passed the arguments in the
>> normal registers? I.e. r25:r2.
>>
>> If the arguments don't fit in the registers, do we always store the
>> result in the same place in ram?
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:38 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>
>>> Nice, so now you have the same test failures as me, they are caused
>>> because we're using custom address space stuff in clang, dont worry about
>>> those. Basically they fail because these tests are writing into address
>>> space 1 which is flash data and that is forbidden in our target (remember
>>> flash memory is readonly).
>>>
>>> The test cases you just commited look great :) To which ones are you
>>> going to move on next?
>>>
>>> Yes, that code looks correct, where is the problem?
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/5/21 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>
>>>> Is the following generated code correct:
>>>>
>>>> LLVM:
>>>>
>>>> define i8 @return8_arg(i8 %x) {
>>>>     ret i8 %x
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Generated:
>>>>
>>>> return8_arg:
>>>> ret
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Something similar in .c compiling with avr-gcc gives a few pushes,
>>>> loads and pops.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When adding those targets I only have 10 unexpected failures:
>>>>>
>>>>>     Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-compound-literal.c
>>>>>     Clang :: CodeGen/address-space-field1.c
>>>>>     Clang :: CodeGen/address-space.c
>>>>>     Clang :: CodeGenCXX/mangle-address-space.cpp
>>>>>     Clang :: PCH/types.c
>>>>>     Clang :: Sema/address_spaces.c
>>>>>     Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-conversion.cpp
>>>>>     Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-newdelete.cpp
>>>>>     Clang :: SemaCXX/address-space-references.cpp
>>>>>     Clang :: SemaTemplate/address-spaces.cpp
>>>>>
>>>>> I will try to run each test separately and try to figure out why they
>>>>> are failing. I have also attached the test output.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm also committing tests for and, or and xor in a minute. They are
>>>>> really simple and similar to the add and sub tests. Please review these :)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you try adding the x86 and x64 targets with the avr one? It's
>>>>>> something related with an unsopported target.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good question, I think there's no need to do reg+imm for xor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Btw remember to add the SF mailing list so we can have a record ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2012/5/14 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, that is the llvm+clang trunk gives me 13 unsupported tests,
>>>>>>> i.e. no failures versus the avr-llvm giving me 280 unexpected failures.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Nicklas Bo Jensen <
>>>>>>> nbj...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, the newest llvm and clang trunk only gives me 13 unexpected
>>>>>>>> failures compared to the the newest trunk with avr-llvm where i get 280
>>>>>>>> unexpected failures.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Considering the regression tests for xor, does it make sense to
>>>>>>>> test reg+imm, as the avr assembler does not have xor for immediate?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think so, but I configured llvm to support both x86 and
>>>>>>>>> x64, so maybe that could help, in fact I can't build clang if I don't add
>>>>>>>>> support for x86.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/10 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But I only configured for avr... Did I do something wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I'm getting:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>   Expected Passes    : 9914
>>>>>>>>>>>   Expected Failures  : 66
>>>>>>>>>>>   Unsupported Tests  : 569
>>>>>>>>>>>   Unexpected Failures: 11
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've seen in that file you attached that you're getting errors
>>>>>>>>>>> because of the target triple, errors like:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> error: unable to create target: 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> error auto-selecting target for module 'No available targets are compatible with this triple, see -version for the available targets
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> so I guess that's the reason, so what is your target triple? do
>>>>>>>>>>> clang -v to get it, mine is i386-pc-linux-gnu
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/10 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Interesting, I'll check it out tomorrow to see if I can find
>>>>>>>>>>>> some reason behind this, because we're getting very different results here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/9 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for my slow response.Got i working again now, thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Building with optimization disabled and assertions turned on i
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Avr llvm+clang:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Expected Passes    : 6978
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Expected Failures  : 39
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Unsupported Tests  : 3281
>>>>>>>>>>>>>   Unexpected Failures: 279
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the 279 unexpected failures for example 143 of them are
>>>>>>>>>>>>> test/CodeGen/Generic. I'm not really sure how these tests are supposed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> work? None of them seems to be using FileCheck.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> However building for msp430 seems to be giving me similar
>>>>>>>>>>>>> results, indicating that it is not a avr-llvm specific problem. Please see
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the attached output "make check-all" from avr-llvm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm asking because last week you said that you were getting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +200 fails, and since I'm getting 11 I wanted to know what's going on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> faluco is me btw, I updated a patch today because I got a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conflict when updating my clang repo. These variables are defined in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DiagnosticSemaKinds.td so check that you have them, they come from the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flash.diff patch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The new tests should pass. I cannot check other tests now,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm having some issues after applying the newest patches that came in today
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by faluco:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4374:38:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       no member named 'err_flash_variable_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Diag(NewVD->getLocation(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diag::err_flash_variable_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:4383:38:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Diag(NewVD->getLocation(),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /home/nicklas/install/avr-llvm/llvm/tools/clang/lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp:7208:25:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> error:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       no member named 'err_flash_pointer_requires_const' in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> namespace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       'clang::diag'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>     Diag(NameLoc, diag::err_flash_pointer_requires_const);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                   ~~~~~~^
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have i done something wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicklas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many tests failures are you getting now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm getting 11, 10 from clang due to address space stuff
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (you'll need to patch clang to get those) and 1 from llvm.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, perfect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would actually guess that you need to run "make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> check-all" before being able to test new tests individually. Sorry :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nevermind, got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One thing, i dont have llvm-lit in that dir, am I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supposed to build llvm with an addtional param or something in order to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, I've committed now. To only run the AVR specific
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tests run something like:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ./build/Debug+Asserts/bin/llvm-lit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> llvm/test/CodeGen/AVR/
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh a small one I've just noticed, leave only 1 newline
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between tests not 2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok they look great now, I don't have any other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> objections. Please commit this test to SVN, post your SF username here so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that Eric or John can give you commit permissions. Once it gets commited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'll check if I need to add any pattern specific tests to it, these tests
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are corner cases of some instructions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before commiting it, remove the testcases dir with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the files there, and create a new one called test/CodeGen/AVR, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> place your file there, just to keep the same structure like in llvm's repo.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> About the rest of tests to do, from that list remove
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mul and division for now, mul isn't yet implemented and division can come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> later. Sub tests should be very similar to add, then add binary ops (or,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and, xor). Add calling convention tests (argument passing through regs and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stack, return values for each value type, calls). Memory operations, etc...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are quite a few tests to add, but for now do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the sub and binary op tests and we'll discuss the others by then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/4 Nicklas Bo Jensen <nbj...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Sure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Yes, I've followed the msp430 backend that does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include it. I've removed it now.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Again, I've moved the CHECK lines, but it differs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from backend to backend.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) Done
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will continue working other tests, which do we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need? Something like(and please add/comment):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Sub
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -division(Only working for multiples of 2?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -mult
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -Return argument(In a few variants)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -xor
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -increment
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -branching?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nicklas
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 12:29 AM, Borja Ferrer <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bor...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Obviously in the last line I meant adiw or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subi/sbci pair, add for immediates doesn't exist for imms greater than 63
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/2 Borja Ferrer <bor...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They look good, very nice :)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Some small details and nitpicks:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) I think it's not necessary to add the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reg_reg_imm variant because you covered it with the other two tests.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Do the tests work if you remove the target
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triple line? I've seen other backends don't include it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Move the CHECK lines after the function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prototype like other backends do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) In every CHECK line, can you remove the tabs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the instr mnemonic and the first operand and add a single space?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (I'm unsure about this because i dont know if CHECK eats spaces). Also for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the future, the llvm coding standards says to config your editor to replace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tabs with spaces, so it's a good moment time to do it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) Oh and the most important one, please add this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in only one file, add.ll or something like that, so we can keep this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> convention in the future, otherwise we'll end having too many test files.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Something that should be covered is, when doing 16
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit additions we can use adiw or add depending on the imm value, can you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cover this aswell?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2012/5/1 John Myers <ato...@gm...>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Apr 29, 2012 at 10:46 AM, Nicklas Bo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jensen <nbj...@gm...> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have successfully been able to compile your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testcases (/avr-llvm/testcases/*.ll) to something looking like valid avr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembler.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> How should I test/simulate the assembler? I get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> errors when trying to simulate the generated assembler in AVRStudio.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps they use a different assembler?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avr-llvm produces GNU assembler syntax, which is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> different then the Atmel assembler syntax.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eventually we could support multiple asm syntax's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the X86 target does.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>