search for: benderski

Thanks Eric. I know some of the references are in the code used for backward compatibility. - Devang On Feb 13, 2012, at 9:21 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at apple.com> wrote: > Thanks. I'll get them. :) > > -eric > > On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Bendersky, Eli wrote: > >> Thanks. Note that there are still a few references to this MDNode scattered throughout

I've opened PR 12050 to track the problem with llvm.dbg.gv Eli From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Bendersky, Eli Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 13:45 To: Devang Patel; Eric Christopher Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] generating !llvm.dbg.sp Eric, Devang, FYI exactly the same applies for llvm.dbg.gv - it's also

Thanks. Note that there are still a few references to this MDNode scattered throughout the code-base, so if it's no longer being generated, there may be some bugs lurking there. Eli From: Devang Patel [mailto:dpatel at apple.com] Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 19:36 To: Bendersky, Eli Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: generating !llvm.dbg.sp On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:17 AM,

Eric, Devang, FYI exactly the same applies for llvm.dbg.gv - it's also still listed in the docs and in various places throughout the code, although no longer generated. Eli From: Devang Patel [mailto:dpatel at apple.com] Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 19:26 To: Eric Christopher Cc: Bendersky, Eli; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] generating !llvm.dbg.sp Thanks Eric. I know

Thanks. I'll get them. :) -eric On Feb 13, 2012, at 1:41 AM, Bendersky, Eli wrote: > Thanks. Note that there are still a few references to this MDNode scattered throughout the code-base, so if it’s no longer being generated, there may be some bugs lurking there. > > Eli > > > From: Devang Patel [mailto:dpatel at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012

On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:17 AM, "Bendersky, Eli" <eli.bendersky at intel.com> wrote: > Hello, > > According to the documentation here -http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html: > > >> All subprogram descriptors are collected by a named metadata!llvm.dbg.sp. > > LLVM seems to have lost the ability to generate this metadata node in r126871, when

Hello, According to the documentation here - http://llvm.org/docs/SourceLevelDebugging.html: >> All subprogram descriptors are collected by a named metadata !llvm.dbg.sp. LLVM seems to have lost the ability to generate this metadata node in r126871, when DIFactory was removed. Is this an intended change? We were relying in the existence of this node, and things broke once we switched

Sorry for speaking too soon. It is missing from 3.2 which is the version I have been using. If it is already implemented than it is very good news. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: Eli Bendersky [mailto:eliben at google.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 9:25 AM To: Manny Ko Cc: Albert Graef; Benjamin Kramer; LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT

On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Joe Abbey <jabbey at arxan.com> wrote: > I know this process is well documented here > http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html > > But man do I love scripting things: > > LLVM Getting Started (See http://llvm.org/docs/GettingStarted.html) > ./getttingStarted.sh [-clang] [-compiler-rt] [-test-suite] [-branch branch] > [-dir path] [-r

On 02.01.2013, at 19:51, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> I compiled parts of LLVM to JavaScript using emscripten and made a demo of parsing and executing LLVM assembly, >> >> http://kripken.github.com/llvm.js/demo.html >> >> Basically you enter some LLVM IR, press a button and see the output of compiling and running it, directly in the browser. >> >> This was

Thanks Andrew for the update. Does it support NotifyFunctionEmitted? Cheers. -----Original Message----- From: Kaylor, Andrew [mailto:andrew.kaylor at intel.com] Sent: Monday, November 26, 2012 1:06 PM To: Manny Ko Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List Subject: RE: [LLVMdev] Removing old JIT CodeEmitters for ARM and PPC The current 3.2 code branch has events being broadcast from the MCJIT engine

On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 9:35 PM, Pete Cooper <peter_cooper at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Eli > > I don’t know a workaround which will keep support for coloured terminal > output, but if you can live without it then passing these to configure > should work. > > --enable-curses=no > --enable-terminfo=no > > Re-doing the configure & build in a new directory solved

On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 6:22 AM, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser.es> wrote: > On 01/26/2013 01:41 AM, Eli Bendersky wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013

The current 3.2 code branch has events being broadcast from the MCJIT engine when a new object is emitted, but the profiling listeners do not do anything with the events (and I don't expect they will before the 3.2 release becomes official). I have implemented some code in trunk since the 3.2 branch to traverse the emitted object and pick out named functions in the IntelJITEventsListener. An

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Sebastian Redl" <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> > To: "Eli Bendersky" <eliben at google.com> > Cc: "Alon Zakai" <azakai at mozilla.com>, "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 11:24:33 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM IR execution in JavaScript >

On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 10:00 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 29 July 2016 at 17:50, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > While I think the 6-month mark is artificial (what's wrong about a vague > > "several months"? these are policies/guidelines, not legal contracts), > > I'm ok with that, too. > >

Ping? On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:59 PM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > Hi, > > While doing various profiling runs of llc, it's easy to notice that > some wall-clock time is not accounted for by -time-passes (e.g. only 7 > out of 9.2 seconds for compiling gcc). Some of the "lost" time is in > reading the bitcode file (~ 1 sec). When reading

On Apr 17, 2013, at 10:43 AM, Eli Bendersky <eliben at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote: > On 4/17/2013 12:15 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > Give a compelling argument and I might :) > > The cost is the extra time spent verifying that the binaries are fresh. In my

On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Caldarale, Charles R <Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> wrote: >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] >> On Behalf Of Eli Bendersky >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Getting rid of tabs in LLVM's assembly output? > >> Problem: I then get tabs in my tests, which are discouraged by LLVM's >>

>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >> 3.1 > > Makes perfect sense to me. > > -Chris According to http://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx0x.html, these features are available from 4.6 (language features only): - Null pointer constant - Forward declarations for enums -