llvm dev - Feb 2008 - [LLVMdev] [PATCH] REPOST: Scheduler Fix

I'm reposting this patch at the request of Evan.  It fixes a problem with
std::priority_queue and _GLIBCXX_DEBUG.

                                                    -Dave
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: schedule_dag.diff
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 7731 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20080229/14bf0bec/attachment.diff>

It's not building:

usr/include/c++/4.0.0/bits/stl_queue.h: In member function 'void  
std::priority_queue<_Tp, _Sequence, _Compare>::push(const typename  
_Sequence::value_type&) [with _Tp = llvm::SUnit*, _Sequence = ll\
vm::container_reference_wrapper<std::vector<llvm::SUnit*,  
std::allocator<llvm::SUnit*> > >, _Compare =
<unnamed>::td_ls_rr_sort]':
ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp:1057:   instantiated from  
'void<unnamed>::RegReductionPriorityQueue<SF>::push(llvm::SUnit*)
[with SF = <unnamed>::td_ls_rr_sort]'
ScheduleDAGRRList.cpp:1630:   instantiated from here
/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/bits/stl_queue.h:436: error: 'class  
llvm::container_reference_wrapper<std::vector<llvm::SUnit*,  
std::allocator<llvm::SUnit*> > >' has no member named
'clear'
/usr/include/c++/4.0.0/bits/stl_queue.h: In member function 'void  
std::priority_queue<_Tp, _Sequence, _Compare>::pop() [with _Tp =  
llvm::SUnit*, _Sequence = llvm::container_reference_wrapper<std::v\
ector<llvm::SUnit*, std::allocator<llvm::SUnit*> > >, _Compare =
<unnamed>::td_ls_rr_sort]':

Missing a patch?

Evan

On Feb 29, 2008, at 1:40 PM, David Greene wrote:
> I'm reposting this patch at the request of Evan.  It fixes a problem  
> with
> std::priority_queue and _GLIBCXX_DEBUG.
>
>                                                    -Dave
> <schedule_dag.diff>_______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

On Friday 29 February 2008 17:23, Evan Cheng wrote:
> It's not building:
> Missing a patch?
Hrm.  I may have missed something.

But Roman's patch is better, so we should go with that.  It covers the
functionality of this patch,

I'm testing Roman's patch right now.

                                                      -Dave