search for: 7candya

...gt; > -- > Joshua Gerrard > JUCE Software Developer > > *ROLI’s **award-winning* > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.telegraph.co.uk%2fluxury%2fdesign%2f31520%2fthe-seaboard-grand-piano-wins-designs-of-the-year-2014-award.html&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft.com%7cdea4217b5ead441afcf508d2f3fc3084%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=Ykf6luCK%2f2N%2bWIfoJ2xCjeUPQcAvUo70IsWas%2boRido%3d>* Seaboard > GRAND, celebrated as the “**piano of the future* > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fediti...

...l=https%3a%2f%2fgithu <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithu> >> >>>> b.com <http://b.com/>%2fdotnet%2fllilc%2fblob%2fdd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a9 >> >>>> 22%2flib%2fJit%2fLLILCJit.cpp%23L299&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft. >> >>>> com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d >> >>>> b47%7c1&sdata=4LCM5dPAFSQZYdEV2jNoXbtIg79%2foS5%2bB8O2Nl3ZqT4%3d >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David Bla...

Some time ago I posted here regarding a relocation overflow on Windows (among other things), but the issue disappeared and so the thread got left. I've started this new thread because a) I didn't want to necro the old one and b) it felt like its own. I've now encountered the issue again and am noting down all the information I can get about it whilst it's happening. The issues is

...; Reviewed By: username0 > > Subscribers: username2, username3, llvm-commits > > Tags: #llvm > > Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/Dxxxxx > <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freviews.llvm.org%2FDxxxxx&data=02%7C01%7Candya%40microsoft.com%7Cfa22dca30ad64a56b98508d78f940ec0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637135738379643383&sdata=Lv4bK2YjVOoLGvjhQ9dIA8o%2FZUzZKajpigs5J13Aaqk%3D&reserved=0> > > These Phabricator metadata lines (`Reviewers:`, `Reviewed By:`, etc) are > created automatica...

I also find the "Reviewed by" tag useful (as well as the review link), for the same reasons. In fact, I don't even use arcanist to push commits, so I do it all by hand, and only include the "Reviewed by" and "Differential Revision" tags. On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 at 20:55, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I don't think

...wrote: >> >> Maybe looking at their code might help: >> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithu >> b.com%2fdotnet%2fllilc%2fblob%2fdd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a9 >> 22%2flib%2fJit%2fLLILCJit.cpp%23L299&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft. >> com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d >> b47%7c1&sdata=4LCM5dPAFSQZYdEV2jNoXbtIg79%2foS5%2bB8O2Nl3ZqT4%3d >> >> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrot...

Thanks for the link! There’s some code there that looks extremely relevant to say the least. > On 1 Oct 2015, at 19:00, Hayden Livingston <halivingston at gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe looking at their code might help: > > https://github.com/dotnet/llilc/blob/dd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a922/lib/Jit/LLILCJit.cpp#L299 > > On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David

...looking at their code might help: >>>> >>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithu >>>> b.com%2fdotnet%2fllilc%2fblob%2fdd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a9 >>>> 22%2flib%2fJit%2fLLILCJit.cpp%23L299&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft. >>>> com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d >>>> b47%7c1&sdata=4LCM5dPAFSQZYdEV2jNoXbtIg79%2foS5%2bB8O2Nl3ZqT4%3d >>>> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev >>>>...

...t;> >>>> >> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3a%2f%2fgithu >> >>>> b.com >> %2fdotnet%2fllilc%2fblob%2fdd12743f9cdb5418f1c39b2cd756da1e8396a9 >> >>>> >> 22%2flib%2fJit%2fLLILCJit.cpp%23L299&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft. >> >>>> >> com%7ce71168aad7ca4c98ee1f08d2cb024bf8%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011d >> >>>> b47%7c1&sdata=4LCM5dPAFSQZYdEV2jNoXbtIg79%2foS5%2bB8O2Nl3ZqT4%3d >> >>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 10:45 AM,...

I started to implement inlining of the stack probe function based on Microsoft's inlined stack probes in https://github.com/Microsoft/llvm/tree/MS. Do we know why the stack pointer cannot be updated in a loop (which results in ideal code)? I noticed that was commented in Microsoft's code. I suspect this is due to debug or unwinding information, since it is allowed on Windows x86-32. I

...Subscribers: username2, username3, llvm-commits >>> >>> Tags: #llvm >>> >>> Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/Dxxxxx >>> <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Freviews.llvm.org%2FDxxxxx&data=02%7C01%7Candya%40microsoft.com%7Cfa22dca30ad64a56b98508d78f940ec0%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637135738379643383&sdata=Lv4bK2YjVOoLGvjhQ9dIA8o%2FZUzZKajpigs5J13Aaqk%3D&reserved=0> >>> >>> These Phabricator metadata lines (`Reviewers:`, `Reviewed By:`, etc) are >&gt...

...; lg at larrygritz.com > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.llvm.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev%0a&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft.com%7c3a126b157c9545a5070708d347847d3f%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=cmNfRJTEMpDrEfKReureGCmBwnyP1UNeX3lTYUbXDc8%3d -- Larry Gritz lg at larrygritz.com

...that this is a purely theoretical problem. -- Sanjoy _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2flists.llvm.org%2fcgi-bin%2fmailman%2flistinfo%2fllvm-dev%0a&data=01%7c01%7candya%40microsoft.com%7cf0dc286d1dc04d5daf9408d33e0d7a98%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7c1&sdata=ZK9BbJxV6%2bcAQn%2ftdy3%2b%2fHyOA7BR5QclvKO1egIap0w%3d

YES. My use of LLVM involves an app that JITs program after program and will quickly swamp memory if everything is retained. It is crucial to aggressively throw everything away but the functions we still need to execute. I've been faking it with old JIT (llvm 3.4/3.5) by using a custom subclass of JITMemoryManager that squirrels away the jitted binary code so that when I free the Modules,

> On Feb 25, 2016, at 12:02 PM, Andy Ayers via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I recall it was things we could deduce by scanning the method before we optimized it, eg deduced noreturn/nothrow. I'd have to go check to be sure. Yes, my understanding is that this is what Chandler suggested when he wrote as part of his plan: 2) Teach frontends to emit (even at

Function has its own FunctionType* member as well as a Type* member that it inherits from GlobalValue. The latter can be mutated but not the former, leading to potential strange inconsistencies. While I realize using mutateType is probably going to trigger a bunch of "you're doing it wrong" replies, it seems like mutateType, as a necessary evil, should be virtual and do the right

I recall it was things we could deduce by scanning the method before we optimized it, eg deduced noreturn/nothrow. I'd have to go check to be sure. Once you allow inlining, you're pretty much telling your users they had better give you compatible definitions. We wanted to make sure that if users gave us compatible defs (mainly: same source, but optimized in one CU and not in another),

Couple of other examples: void @foo(i32* %ptr) available_externally { %discard = load i32, i32* %ptr } void bar() { call @foo(i32* %x) } ==> void @foo(i32* %ptr) available_externally { } void bar() { call @foo(i32* %x) } ==> void @foo(i32* %ptr) available_externally { } void bar() { call @foo(i32* undef) ;; non optimized @foo will crash } ;;

Hal Finkel wrote: > That summary needs unnecessarily broad. So far we've learned that: a) There are issues with atomics b) there are issues > with a safe-to-speculate attribute we don't yet have c) there might be issues with folding undefs independent of the > previous two items, but we thus-far lack a concrete example. We don't yet have enough information. I don't