search for: attributelists

Hi, all. I want to give programmer ability to tell LLVM that certain region of code is expected to get specialized optimization. So, I'm trying to make custom pragma to mark certain region of code and pass this information to LLVM, in the similar way that '#pragma clang loop unroll_count(N)' works. By tracking the framework of loop unroll pragma, I found out it works in the way below.

Yes. I checked that file, but I wasn't sure whether that is right one to look at. What is *.td extension btw? When I google it, it says this is for Windows Debug Simulator. Why clang use this extension, which is limited to Windows environment? On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 7:00 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com> wrote: > That file is generated by the clang-tblgen tool: > >

> Yes. I checked that file, but I wasn't sure whether that is right one to look at. It seems promising. I imagine you'd want something like the LoopHint attr. > What is *.td extension btw? The llvm project uses that extension to identify TableGen inputs (http://llvm.org/docs/TableGen/). vedant > On Oct 25, 2016, at 4:12 PM, Sunghyun Park <sunggg at umich.edu> wrote:

LLVM's Attribute APIs need an overhaul. Current problems ================ First, testing for an attribute on an Argument is slow. llvm::AttributeSet::getAttributes(int) consumed 2% of cycles while optimizing llc during LTO. Our mid-level optimizations are constantly asking if a given argument has some attribute (nonnull, dereferencable, etc), and this is currently linear in the size of the

> On 24 Mar 2015, at 14:55, Aaron Ballman <aaron at aaronballman.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 9:48 AM, Rinaldini Julien > <julien.rinaldini at heig-vd.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just

Hi, I want to *tag* some functions with some *flags*. I was using annotate((“myFlag”)) and everything was working fine until I tried on ObjC method. It seems that clang just ignore it. So, to be able to *flag* my functions I’m trying to add a *real* attribute to clang. I’ve added a new attribute to clang in tools/clang/include/clang/Basic/Attr.td: def NoFLA : Attr { let Spellings =

Hi everyone, TL;DR: With current pending patches applied in compiler-rt and llvm, and trunk clang, you can build your application with XRay tracing enabled on Linux with tracing enabled before main starts, and logging stops when the main thread exits. Just a quick update, I have some patches under review that when applied cleanly to LLVM and compiler-rt allows for building applications with XRay

On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: > > IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. > The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but when I set an attribute on the parameter with index zero, it gets applied to

Using the New Attributes Classes Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary to do this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful of attributes --- e.g. command line options. The old way of handling attributes consisted of representing them as a bit mask of values. This bit mask was stored in a "list" structure that was reference

On Dec 21, 2010, at 11:33, james woodyatt wrote: > On Dec 21, 2010, at 00:43, Duncan Sands wrote: >> >> IIRC the function return value is considered to be the parameter with index 0. >> The function itself is considered to be the parameter with index ~0U. > > Yes, that's what the documentation seems to say is the proper mode for indexing the return parameter, but

everyone-- Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in <llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this intentional?

Hi James, > Is it my imagination, or is there no way in LLVM 2.8 (or current trunk) to use the facilities defined in<llvm-c/Core.h> to get or set the optional return parameter attribute on a function value? > > All the functions in the "Operations on parameters" parameters section actually seem to work only on the function arguments and not the return parameter. Is this

Hi, I previously received help in extract data from a shapefile and now my question is about kernel density estimation. My objective is to have 3 kernel density plots; 2 for the each set of cases and the 3rd is the difference in kernel densities between the 2 sets of cases. Previously, I used the density function from the stats package, which worked but I wanted finer control of the bandwidth.

Very nice! Could we get this write-up added to the sphinx docs? On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Bill Wendling <wendling at apple.com> wrote: > Using the New Attributes Classes > > Attributes in LLVM have changed in some fundamental ways. It was necessary > to do > this to support expanding the attributes to encompass more than a handful > of >

I'm trying to write a script for checking whether the compiler recursed properly. rkotler at mipsswbrd002:~/slave/recurse3be/build$ find . -name "*.o" -exec cmp '{}' ../../recurse2be/build/'{}' \; |& tee foo.txt Is anyone else doing this? There 2 compilers, recurse 2 and recurse3 that in principle should be identical. Obviously if there is date and time

On 29 July 2011 12:48, Dan Bailey <dan at dneg.com> wrote: > I'm not going to comment on the syntax of any of the proposals made, just > dispute that they don't provide sufficient value to make them worth > introducing. Hi Dan, I've read the arguments on both sides and I have to say I'm with Chris on this one. I normally keep GDB running with my debug image. After

Hi all, I am a newbie in LLVM and I am trying to replace the function like: old function || new function ======================================= int haha(int a) { int haha(int a, char* ID) { ===> } } Of course in the newly replaced function "int haha(int,

There are two 64-bit bitmasks maintained in AttributeImpl.h<https://sdocc.itg.ti.com/ui#file:review=11893/version=393846>: - AvailableFunctionAttrs is part of the AttributeListImpl class, and - AvailableAttrs is part of the AttributeSetNode class Both of these assume that the number of available enum attributes is limited to 64. In fact, a static_assert in

Dear LLVM developers, Our team has developed an LLVM-based protection mechanism that (i) prevents control-flow hijack attacks enabled by memory corruption errors and (ii) has very low performance overhead. We would like to contribute the implementation to LLVM. We presented this work at the OSDI 2014 conference, at several software companies, and several US universities. We received positive

I attempted the following: resources { service: purge => true, noop => true } service { sshd: ensure => running; iptables ensure => running; } And got the following message: notice: Starting configuration run err: Found a bug: uninitialized constant Parse notice: Finished configuration run in 0.47 seconds When I remove the ''resources'' line, everything works