search for: candiates

I was wondering if global variables can be candidates for register allocation. My use case is a global variable that is used in every function in my program. I'm wondering if it's better to pass it in, or let it stay as a global. Passing it in will require a bit of work.

Right, I follow your theory and thought the same. I have a single TU scenario where the global is just used because we generate hand assembly at runtime, and want to keep the code written by hand to be super simple, calls with no parameters. Our scenario is literally reading a file, which calls this functions hundreds of thousands of times, and we reset the pointer to the "global"

Thanks, Reid. I'm not an optimization expert, but as a workaround, can I do the following: void myFunction() { int local = global; .. use local ... } ? On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 6:53 PM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > This came up in the past for GHC, and we recommended passing it as a > parameter everywhere, as it lets the register allocator spill it under high

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> As requested by Anthony, here is a patch against target-pending/for-next-merge to expose an ABI version to userspace via a new VHOST_SCSI_GET_ABI_VERSION ioctl operation. As mentioned in the comment, ABI Rev 0 is for pre 2012 out-of-tree code, and ABI Rev 1 (the current rev) is for current WIP v3.6 kernel merge candiate code. I think this

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> As requested by Anthony, here is a patch against target-pending/for-next-merge to expose an ABI version to userspace via a new VHOST_SCSI_GET_ABI_VERSION ioctl operation. As mentioned in the comment, ABI Rev 0 is for pre 2012 out-of-tree code, and ABI Rev 1 (the current rev) is for current WIP v3.6 kernel merge candiate code. I think this

>>> Looks like it couldn't find llvm-gcc. >> >> Its on the path. > > Is it set in site.exp? Thats it, great. Should I be testing the 2.0 candiate release from CVS or are you releasing .tar.gz's ? Thanks alot, Aaron

I'm have a [PATCH] isDereferenceablePointer: look through gc.relocates and I want to know how to test this patch. So far, I've found one candiate: speculative execution in SimplifyCFG (test/Transforms/SimplifyCFG/SpeculativeExec.ll). However, it's somewhat involved to show that SimplifyCFG does kick in for gc.relocate. Is there a better way to directly test it? Signed-off-by:

Hi Thomas, This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. After looking around a bit I tried "virtx7-44-candidate", in a sibling directory to virtx7-44-testing. It has a more recent date, so I tried with that and it works fine. It resolves the issues listed in your email from 7/7/2015. I am now looking for a

Philip Reames wrote: > T.M.K., there's no direct way to test it. There is. See the 'unittests/' directory which contains the C++ unit tests. See unittests/IR/UserTest.cpp for an example that builds up IR from a .ll-in-a-C-string then queries C++ API operations on it. Nick You have to construct a > transformation which happens with the information you added and not >

On 09/04/2015 04:39 PM, T.Weyergraf wrote: > > > On 09/03/2015 09:50 PM, Chuck Meade wrote: >> Hi Thomas, > Hi Chuck >> >> This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior >> to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. >> After looking around a bit I tried "virtx7-44-candidate", in a sibling >> directory to

Hello Sébastien, Making backends to LLVM is a significant amount of work. If you want somebody to do it for you, either offer some payment or do your own coding. Keep in mind that the bread-and-butter support for LLVM comes from Apple computer so unless the next iPad will start using softcores, be prepared to pursue the other courses of action I laid out. I may be having to write a backend to

On 09/03/2015 09:50 PM, Chuck Meade wrote: > Hi Thomas, Hi Chuck > > This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. > After looking around a bit I tried "virtx7-44-candidate", in a sibling directory to virtx7-44-testing. It has a more > recent date, so I tried with that and it works fine. It resolves the

>> Several instances of 'couldn't execute "-emit-llvm": no such file or >> directory' :- >> >> FAIL: /usr/src/llvm/test/CodeGen/CBackend/2007-01-06-Signless.c >> Failed with posix(ENOENT,no such file or directory) at line 1 >> while running: -emit-llvm -S >> /usr/src/llvm/test/CodeGen/CBackend/2007-01-06-Signless.c -o - |

>>> FAIL: /usr/src/llvm/test/CodeGen/CBackend/2007-01-06-Signless.c >>> Failed with posix(ENOENT,no such file or directory) at line 1 >>> while running: -emit-llvm -S >>> /usr/src/llvm/test/CodeGen/CBackend/2007-01-06-Signless.c -o - | llvm-as >>> | llc -march=c | grep {(unsigned short} >>> couldn't execute

On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 20:36 +0100, Aaron Gray wrote: > >>> Looks like it couldn't find llvm-gcc. > >> > >> Its on the path. > > > > Is it set in site.exp? > > Thats it, great. Aaron, Please note that the path is (purposefully) not used to locate test executables. Many of us have many LLVM environments and using the path leads to confusion.

On 09/07/2015 12:40 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 09/04/2015 04:39 PM, T.Weyergraf wrote: >> >> On 09/03/2015 09:50 PM, Chuck Meade wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >> Hi Chuck >>> This may be old news at this point, but I had 100% identical behavior >>> to yours when I tried virtx7-44-testing. >>> After looking around a bit I tried

Hi all, anybody of you having a working samba.spec for RHEL4 or RHEL5? thanks a lot, christian ___________________________________________________________ Christian Masopust SIEMENS AG SIS PSE TMF Tel: +43 (0) 5 1707 26866 E-mail: christian.masopust@siemens.com Addr: Austria, 1210 Vienna, Siemensstra?e 90-92, B. 33, Rm. 243 Leader of

On Feb 26, 2011, at 6:12 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> >> All these patterns have one important downside. They are suboptimal if >> more than one store happens in a row. E.g. the 0 store is better >> expressed as xor followed by two register moves, if a register is >> available... This is most noticable when memset() gets inlined > > Note that

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> Hi Anthony, Here are the two patches against Zhi's vhost-scsi tree to check for a supported version (VHOST_SCSI_ABI_VERSION=1) that's now exposed via the tcm_vhost ioctl. Please have a look and let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks! Nicholas Bellinger (2): vhost-scsi: Rename vhost_vring_target ->

From: Nicholas Bellinger <nab at linux-iscsi.org> Hi Anthony, Here are the two patches against Zhi's vhost-scsi tree to check for a supported version (VHOST_SCSI_ABI_VERSION=1) that's now exposed via the tcm_vhost ioctl. Please have a look and let me know if this is what you had in mind. Thanks! Nicholas Bellinger (2): vhost-scsi: Rename vhost_vring_target ->