search for: com_llvm_llvm

...asons? Compilation/build system convenience? > > Thanks, > Julian > > [1] https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/blob/fcbd7f64953b04f42dd59f606e45dc8e88a27548/compiler-rt/lib/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_stacktrace.h#L21 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_llvm_llvm-2Dproject_blob_fcbd7f64953b04f42dd59f606e45dc8e88a27548_compiler-2Drt_lib_sanitizer-5Fcommon_sanitizer-5Fstacktrace.h-23L21&d=DwMFAg&c=I_0YwoKy7z5LMTVdyO6YCiE2uzI1jjZZuIPelcSjixA&r=y8mub81SfUi-UCZRX0Vl1g&m=PyWoz5dhVQq4Qd3o66DlXu836tgSHFc2XCX0gHQyHoM&s=xPhup1hvHzIkL7yBEi03pLgh3nt...

Hi, In sanitizer code we have two notions of stack unwinders: fast and slow. [1] In the context of sanitizers, stack unwinding is most often for printing error reports that include a stack trace. I am currently trying to fix an issue that is related to some platforms (Darwin) only supporting the fast unwinder, but calling code not being aware of that possibility. My mental model was that

...s space. So the distance vector isn't [0 2] (and isn't even [= <]). Unfortunately this is perfectly valid in C (I think for the int a[][m] case too). See this comment for why they were needed and perhaps a better way to fix it: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_llvm_llvm-2Dproject_commit_d143c65de3c884d09197da279d2f04f094efaf15-23diff-2D57473b376037dd3637516348b9b02556L3274&d=DwIFAw&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=aihobyOnVzXW7OPSK1-NiSYQkq7oP3ZSUVc4BemvrVo&m=46eKxI_sFjjeBzn7X-OLXSEUwHN-HVCD16TF9OuyIqc&s=adPvJDhPtFMlaTWihZmvWjXqFUFHDnzcV84oaDGlryM&am...

"git remote get-url" is apparently fairly new, the old version is "git config remote.origin.url". Might be worth using that for compatibility. On Mon, Jul 29, 2019, 5:11 PM Stefan Gränitz <stefan.graenitz at gmail.com> wrote: > Hey Cam, it works for me on TOT (89fb9e8ce15). > > What does the failed command return for you? It should be: > > > git

...ector isn't [0 2] (and isn't even [= <]). Unfortunately this is > perfectly valid in C (I think for the int a[][m] case too). > > See this comment for why they were needed and perhaps a better way to fix > it: > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_llvm_llvm-2Dproject_commit_d143c65de3c884d09197da279d2f04f094efaf15-23diff-2D57473b376037dd3637516348b9b02556L3274&d=DwIFAw&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=aihobyOnVzXW7OPSK1-NiSYQkq7oP3ZSUVc4BemvrVo&m=46eKxI_sFjjeBzn7X-OLXSEUwHN-HVCD16TF9OuyIqc&s=adPvJDhPtFMlaTWihZmvWjXqFUFHDnzcV84oaDGlryM&am...

Hi all, I have been looking at the `DependenceAnalysis` pass in `llvm/include/llvm/Analysis/DependenceAnalysis.h`. In order for this analysis to produce accurate dependence vectors for multi-dimensional arrays in nested loops, it needs to "delinearize" array element accesses to recover the subscripts in each dimension of the array. I believe that the current implementation of

Hi Ivan, The code that we have is indeed different from what the 'standard llvm' expects. Let me explain: in our version we came into this situation in two steps: 1) I added support for 'special types' that map directly to types supported by hardware. These types are represented by a struct containing a single iXXX member, providing the necessary bits of the type, and at the

Hello Yes, I agree that the SCEV cannot be simplified. Is my understanding correct that it is passed to a function like "isKnownNegative"? Which could still be able to prove is always true. The delinearisation may be valid, depending on exactly how you define delinearisation (under what conditions it should be giving results). It would be invalid for DA to return a dependency of [0