search for: arichardson

Hi Alex, On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 11:53, Alexander Richardson <arichardson.kde at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 10:28 Thomas Preudhomme <thomas.preudhomme at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexander, >> >> Please forgive me if I'm missing the obvious but I do not see how the >> order helps allowing a comma in th...

...re just substituted in. If it is harder, that's fine. Otherwise, I just say do it. James On 31 July 2018 at 11:51, Thomas Preudhomme via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: Hi Alex, On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 11:53, Alexander Richardson <arichardson.kde at gmail.com<mailto:arichardson.kde at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 10:28 Thomas Preudhomme <thomas.preudhomme at linaro.org<mailto:thomas.preudhomme at linaro.org>> wrote: >> >> Hi Alexander, >> >> Please forgive me if I'm...

...and you) expressed preference for the reverse order so I'll assume that's the general preference. Best regards, Thomas P.S.: My apologies for only asking now but how do you prefer to be called? Alexander Vs Alex Vs something else? On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 at 20:23, Alexander Richardson <arichardson.kde at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jul 2018 at 13:50 Thomas Preudhomme <thomas.preudhomme at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> Thanks for the feedback. My first thought was that introducing the new >> pseudo var @EXPR is a nice way to generali...

...it. >> >> >> >> James >> >> >> >> On 31 July 2018 at 11:51, Thomas Preudhomme via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Fri, 27 Jul 2018 at 11:53, Alexander Richardson >> <arichardson.kde at gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > On Thu, 26 Jul 2018 at 10:28 Thomas Preudhomme < >> thomas.preudhomme at linaro.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi Alexander, >> >> >> >> Please forgive me if I'm missing the obvious but...

...ke sure that the syntax would allow it if we realize we need this later and I think Jame's proposal does. It seems this syntax would suit all your current uses (albeit the rewriting necessary), did I miss something? Best regards, Thomas On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 21:59, Alexander Richardson <arichardson.kde at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 17 Jul 2018 at 10:02 Thomas Preudhomme via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> To be clear, I do not intend to add support for hex specifier in the >> current patch, I just want to make sure the syntax we...

In our fork of LLVM we often need to reduce a crash testcase for a specific assertion. After writing lots of "only give me this specific assertion" scripts like the above I decided to write a script that automates all this for me: <https://github.com/CTSRD-CHERI/clang/blob/master/utils/creduce_crash_testcase.py>. (It's called creduce_crash_test.py but it will actually use

I'm not sure if this helps, but here it is in case it does. I typically use bugpoint in a way as to keep the actual failure that I'm after. For example, with the test case you've pasted, I was looking for a specific assert. So I used bugpoint this way: $ cat reduceme.sh #!/bin/bash llc -filetype=obj $1 2>&1 | grep 'Cannot lower calls with arbitrary operand bundles'

To be clear, I do not intend to add support for hex specifier in the current patch, I just want to make sure the syntax we choose is going to allow it later. My immediate use case is decimal integer and I intend to write the code so that it's easy to extend to more type of numeric variables and expressions later. This way we'll only add specifier that are actually required by actual