llvm dev - Nov 2012 - [LLVMdev] [llvm-commits] Flag to print vectorized loops

> IMO, the right way to build this is something like
> "InlineAsmDiagnosticHandler" in LLVMContext (but hopefully
better, and more
> structured :)
Hey Chris,

Did you catch my suggestion in reply to Hal, about maybe generalizing
Clang's diagnostics infrastructure up into LLVM? Your reply seems
along the same lines. It seems like a natural fit to reuse that rather
than make another one (and it would permit seamless integration).
Also, presumably LLD is going to be giving sweet diagnostics some day,
and this change would be analogous to the work that Michael Spencer
has been doing lifting and generalizing the option-parsing stuff from
Clang. What do you think about that approach?

-- Sean

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com>
wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 6:00 PM, Nadav Rotem <nrotem at apple.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 3:46 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
> In my opinion, what we really need is an interface that the frontend can
use
> to get information from the backend optimizers. Then the frontend can
> display this information to users in an appropriate way.
>
>
> I  agree.
>
> Furthermore, this information should be structured (we already have a YAML
> parser, so that might be a good choice),
>
>
> YAML is a great way to serialize these messages, and pass them to IDEs,
etc.
> But I think that we should start discussing the interfaces.
>
> and should probably directly take a Value *, BasicBlock *, Function *, etc.
> so that the frontend can do the appropriate mapping for the user.
>
>
> +1
>
>
> IMO, the right way to build this is something like
> "InlineAsmDiagnosticHandler" in LLVMContext (but hopefully
better, and more
> structured :).  The basic jist of it is that the backend can push messages
> up, and the frontend can register its hooks to render them however it
likes.
> In this case, I agree that clang "Notes" or some new
"informational"
> diagnostic is probably the right way to go.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
>

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>
wrote:
>> IMO, the right way to build this is something like
>> "InlineAsmDiagnosticHandler" in LLVMContext (but hopefully
better, and more
>> structured :)
>
> Hey Chris,
>
> Did you catch my suggestion in reply to Hal, about maybe generalizing
> Clang's diagnostics infrastructure up into LLVM? Your reply seems
> along the same lines. It seems like a natural fit to reuse that rather
> than make another one (and it would permit seamless integration).
> Also, presumably LLD is going to be giving sweet diagnostics some day,
> and this change would be analogous to the work that Michael Spencer
> has been doing lifting and generalizing the option-parsing stuff from
> Clang. What do you think about that approach?
clang's diagnostic code is inseparably tied to clang's SourceManager,
which really only makes sense for code using clang's Lex library.  It
might make sense to have a simpler diagnostic printing library in LLVM
even if clang can't use it.

-Eli

On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> clang's diagnostic code is inseparably tied to clang's
SourceManager,
> which really only makes sense for code using clang's Lex library.
Bummer.

-- Sean Silva

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eli Friedman" <eli.friedman at gmail.com>
> To: "Sean Silva" <silvas at purdue.edu>
> Cc: llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu, "Sebastian Pop" <spop at
codeaurora.org>, llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu
> Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 8:33:51 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [LLVMdev]  Flag to print vectorized loops
> 
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu>
> wrote:
> >> IMO, the right way to build this is something like
> >> "InlineAsmDiagnosticHandler" in LLVMContext (but
hopefully better,
> >> and more
> >> structured :)
> >
> > Hey Chris,
> >
> > Did you catch my suggestion in reply to Hal, about maybe
> > generalizing
> > Clang's diagnostics infrastructure up into LLVM? Your reply seems
> > along the same lines. It seems like a natural fit to reuse that
> > rather
> > than make another one (and it would permit seamless integration).
> > Also, presumably LLD is going to be giving sweet diagnostics some
> > day,
> > and this change would be analogous to the work that Michael Spencer
> > has been doing lifting and generalizing the option-parsing stuff
> > from
> > Clang. What do you think about that approach?
> 
> clang's diagnostic code is inseparably tied to clang's
SourceManager,
> which really only makes sense for code using clang's Lex library.  It
> might make sense to have a simpler diagnostic printing library in
> LLVM
> even if clang can't use it.
Printing notices is one useful way this information can be used, but not the
only method. This information can also be used in IDEs for hover-over popups
(and similar UI widgets). One generic capability that clang should eventually
provide is the generation of 'listing' files. These are copies of the
source code where each line is annotated with information on what optimizations
were performed and/or hints on why some common or requested optimization was not
performed.

 -Hal
> 
> -Eli
> _______________________________________________
> llvm-commits mailing list
> llvm-commits at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits
> 
-- 
Hal Finkel
Postdoctoral Appointee
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory