search for: _actually

...why there is massive CLI-Support for debugging passes (think "-debug-pass=Details"). Problem is that the debug output does not show _all_ the passes that are invalidated but some _only some_ of them. Since _some_ invalidated passes are show, I never bothered to to check if my Pass was _actually really_ preserved because it did not show up in the list of invalidated passes. Attached patch adds debug output for _all_ invalidated passes. I will commit this in the next days if there are no objections. On 11/20/2009 04:30 PM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > > Andreas Neustifter wrote: &...

Hello! I would like to ask the list a question, as I could not find the answer in online material as well as several books. I do have summary data (mean, standard deviation and sample size n) and want to analyze this data. The summary data is supposed to be from a normal distribution. I need the following calculations on this summary data (no, I do not have the original data): - one

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Andreas Neustifter <astifter-llvm at gmx.at> wrote: > > If I use  AU.addRequired<ProfileInfo>() in SelectionDAGISel.cpp the > wrong ProfileInfo is used. It uses the "No ProfileInfo" implementation > if ProfileInfo but not the one from ProfileInfoLoaderPass. (Which is > immediately discarded after creation.) > You need to

...rtain. Maybe that needs a new option as well. An additional complication that I think nobody has mentioned yet: what happens with static libraries containing such object files? I'd hope that linking against a .a which includes .o files with linker options, only adds the options from a .o files _actually included_ in the link. That is true of the Apple implementation, but I don't know about the MS one. But that really needs to be specified. A short survey of some existing implementations: 1. Apple ld64 allows precisely two linker options to be embedded: "-lNAME" and "-framewo...

...if a similar project took six weeks, I'll have to resign in utter embarrassment--unless I can rapidly adapt their methods to my project's platform :-} So, as much as I truly appreciate your suggestions on potential implementations, what I really need is information about projects that have _actually implemented_ (or chosen not to implement) an LLVM backend on a platform that has no stack. And I apologize again for not having been clear about that previously. In hind sight, I can immediately see that what I wrote was much too open and vague, not at all correct except when viewed through the fil...

> On Jan 6, 2018, at 6:55 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 6, 2018 at 8:56 AM, Saleem Abdulrasool <compnerd at compnerd.org <mailto:compnerd at compnerd.org>> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 5, 2018 at 2:30 AM Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com <mailto:ruiu at google.com>> wrote: > Thank you for starting the discussion thread. >

Thanks, no malloc or free equivalents either (no heap). So, there are no others (to your knowledge) who have built an LLVM backend for a platform with no “normal” stack? I found a presentation about some FPGA work (using LLVM) but it doesn’t seem to apply to my platform. Perhaps someone else on the mailing list will have come across this rarity? Thank you again for your time and