search for: adegm

Committed at r194269 Thanks Jakob ! Cheers, -- Arnaud On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk>wrote: > > On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison < > arnaud.adegm at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Based on discussions with Lang Hames and Jakob Stoklund Olesen at the > hacker's lab, and in the light of upcoming work on the PBQP register > allocator, it was though that CalcSpillWeights does not need to be a pass. > This change will enable to...

Hi Simon, The page will be updated later today with the new rate. Kind regards, Arnaud On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:52 PM Simon Dardis via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > The EventBrite page is showing sales have ended, will it be reopening with > the higher rate soon? > > Thanks, > Simon > > On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 at 00:20, Tanya Lattner via

On Nov 8, 2013, at 7:40 AM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com> wrote: > Based on discussions with Lang Hames and Jakob Stoklund Olesen at the hacker's lab, and in the light of upcoming work on the PBQP register allocator, it was though that CalcSpillWeights does not need to be a pass. This change will enable to customize / tune the spi...

Based on discussions with Lang Hames and Jakob Stoklund Olesen at the hacker's lab, and in the light of upcoming work on the PBQP register allocator, it was though that CalcSpillWeights does not need to be a pass. This change will enable to customize / tune the spill weight computation depending on the allocator. Update the documentation style while there. I also intend to take

We are pleased to announce the 6th European LLVM conference on March 17-18, 2016 in Barcelona, Spain. This will be a full two-day conference which aims to present the latest developments around LLVM and help strengthen the network of LLVM developers and users. The format will be similar to that of the previous meetings, with ample time for presentations, discussion, and networking between

...> > <sylvestre at debian.org>, "Sebastian Dreßler" > > <sebastian.dressler at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, > > "Ben Pope" <benpope81 at gmail.com>, "Arnaud Allard de > > Grandmaison" <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com>, "Erik Verbruggen" > > <erik.verbruggen at me.com> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 11:10:43 AM > > Subject: 3.4.1 Release Plans > > > > Hi, > > > > We are now about halfway between the 3.4 and 3.5 releases, and I >...

On 6 February 2013 22:13, Arnaud de Grandmaison <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com>wrote: > ** > > I think we just need to increase coverage. Everything you can do to build > (even slightly) differently than other bots is good to have. > Hi Arnaud, I agree building with { CMake, autoconf } x { Cold, Warm } will catch more corner cases than defaul...

On 09/03/2013 02:13 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > Hi folks, > > When cross-compiling LLVM to ARM, using CMake+Ninja, I realized that > libxml2 depends on lzma, but the dependency is not explicit on the > build.ninja file under the "build bin/c-index-test"'s LINK_LIBRARIES > (which is the only one that cares about it). > > I couldn't find the place to add

The next LLVM social in Paris will happen on June 14th, 2017. Everyone interested in LLVM, Clang, lldb, Polly, lld, ... is invited to join. Event details, including registration (free but mandatory) at http://www.meetup.com/LLVM-Clang-social This edition will be particularly busy (and interesting !) as we are delighted to welcome 3 guest speakers: - Hal Finkel (Argonne National Laboratory)

The next LLVM social in Paris will happen on January 30th, 2018. Everyone interested in LLVM, Clang, lldb, Polly, lld, ... is invited to join. Event details, including registration (free but mandatory) at http://www.meetup.com/LLVM-Clang-social For this meetup, Adrien Guinet, Serge Guelton and Juan Manuel Martinez will talk about the "Challenges when building an LLVM bitcode

Related to this subject is the __attribute__(aligned(X)) that can be set on a type in C/C++. It is being used when generating the load / stores / memcpy / ... but is lost with respect to the type's attribute. In many a case this could help various analysis or transforms to provide more accurate results when such a type is used. The __builtin_assume_aligned could be an way to solve this.

On 04/14/2014 02:31 PM, Arnaud Allard de Grandmaison wrote: > Hi All, > > As kindly pointed by Sebastian, please forget my point about the release > script. I read the mail from Tom 2 days ago, and forgot that the script was > available in the tag / branch when I acted today :( > > I uploaded clang+llvm-3.4.1-rc1-x86_64-unknown-ubuntu12.04.tar.xz to > ftp.llvm.org. >

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:53 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 6 February 2013 22:13, Arnaud de Grandmaison <arnaud.adegm at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I think we just need to increase coverage. Everything you can do to build >> (even slightly) differently than other bots is good to have. > > > Hi Arnaud, > > I agree building with { CMake, autoconf } x { Cold, Warm } will catch mo...

Hi folks, When cross-compiling LLVM to ARM, using CMake+Ninja, I realized that libxml2 depends on lzma, but the dependency is not explicit on the build.ninja file under the "build bin/c-index-test"'s LINK_LIBRARIES (which is the only one that cares about it). I couldn't find the place to add -llzma into the deps, and the only mention of libxml2 is in config-ix.cmake:

On Wednesday 06 February 2013 21:41:06 Renato Golin wrote: Hi all, A discussion was being carried on llvmcommits about the extra time for cleaning and re-building objects that didn't need to be built on buildbots. Since they just update the repository, builds could be a lot faster if we let the objects in place. Even faster if we used Ninja with CMake. Is there a crucial reason why

Hi.All I had a problem in using llvm::InstVisitor class, my pass is like that: using namespace llvm; namespace { class InstVisit : public ModulePass, public InstVisitor<InstVisit> { public : static char ID; InstVisit():ModulePass(ID){} virtual bool runOnModule(Module &M) { visit(M); return false; } void visitStoreInst(StoreInst &SI) {

Hi all, A discussion was being carried on llvmcommits about the extra time for cleaning and re-building objects that didn't need to be built on buildbots. Since they just update the repository, builds could be a lot faster if we let the objects in place. Even faster if we used Ninja with CMake. Is there a crucial reason why we're still using autoconf for all builds? Some of us

Great summary Kristof ! I do not know how frequent is the addition of a new benchmark, but this would disrupt the compile time measurement. On the other hand, we just want to see a (hopefully negative) slope and ignore steps due to new benchmark being added. Cheers, -- Arnaud On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 2:14 PM, Kristof Beyls <kristof.beyls at arm.com>wrote: > Hi, > > > >

Hi, I have just tagged the first release candidate for the 3.4.1 release, so testers may begin testing. Please refer to http://llvm.org/docs/ReleaseProcess.html for information on how to validate a release. If you have any questions or need something clarified, just email the list. For the 3.4.1 release we want to compare test results against 3.4-final. I have added support to the

Hi, We are now about halfway between the 3.4 and 3.5 releases, and I would like to start preparing for a 3.4.1 release. Here is my proposed release schedule: Mar 26 - April 9: Identify and backport additional bug fixes to the 3.4 branch. April 9 - April 18: Testing Phase April 18: 3.4.1 Release How you can help: - If you have any bug fixes you think should be included to 3.4.1, send me an