search for: caller2

...ata referenced by multiple DISubprograms would not be located within one of these blocks? The problem is that the same subprogram may be referenced from multiple functions. Consider: -- void sink(); __attribute__((always_inline)) static inline void foo() { sink(); } void caller1() { foo(); } void caller2() { foo(); } void unrelated() {} -- The IR for caller1 and caller2 will both reference the subprogram for foo, something like: -- define void @caller1() !dbg !2 { call void @sink(), !dbg !5 ret void, !dbg !7 } define void @caller1() !dbg !3 { call void @sink(), !dbg !8 ret void, !dbg !10 }...

...s would not be located within one of these blocks? > > The problem is that the same subprogram may be referenced from multiple > functions. Consider: > -- > void sink(); > __attribute__((always_inline)) static inline void foo() { sink(); } > void caller1() { foo(); } > void caller2() { foo(); } > void unrelated() {} > -- > > The IR for caller1 and caller2 will both reference the subprogram for > foo, something like: > -- > define void @caller1() !dbg !2 { > call void @sink(), !dbg !5 > ret void, !dbg !7 > } > define void @caller1() !dbg !3...

...would not be located within one of these blocks? > > The problem is that the same subprogram may be referenced from multiple > functions. Consider: > -- > void sink(); > __attribute__((always_inline)) static inline void foo() { sink(); } > void caller1() { foo(); } > void caller2() { foo(); } > void unrelated() {} > -- > > The IR for caller1 and caller2 will both reference the subprogram for > foo, something like: > -- > define void @caller1() !dbg !2 { > call void @sink(), !dbg !5 > ret void, !dbg !7 > } > define void @caller1() !dbg !...

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 7:28 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > I have some ideas to allow the BitcodeReader to lazy-load debug info > metadata, and wanted to air this on llvm-dev before getting too deep > into the code. > > Motivation > ========== > > Based on some analysis Mehdi ran (ping him for details), there are three > (related)

I am going to document a 10.000 lines of R code project. Before reinventing the wheel, has anyone written a function that analyzes dependencies between R functions? I am thinking of output like caller1 calee1 caller1 calee2 caller1 : caller2 calee7 : and I would like to restrict caller and callee to certain positions in the search path. My guess is, that a quick and dirty solution is easy, but I have no idea how to filter out calls to locally defined functions. Furthermore I heard rumors about newnamespacing features. Is there alre...

I am going to document a 10.000 lines of R code project. Before reinventing the wheel, has anyone written a function that analyzes dependencies between R functions? I am thinking of output like caller1 calee1 caller1 calee2 caller1 : caller2 calee7 : and I would like to restrict caller and callee to certain positions in the search path. My guess is, that a quick and dirty solution is easy, but I have no idea how to filter out calls to locally defined functions. Furthermore I heard rumors about newnamespacing features. Is there alre...

I have some ideas to allow the BitcodeReader to lazy-load debug info metadata, and wanted to air this on llvm-dev before getting too deep into the code. Motivation ========== Based on some analysis Mehdi ran (ping him for details), there are three (related) compile-time bottlenecks we're seeing with `-flto=thin -g`: a) Reading the large number of Metadata bitcode records in the global