search for: commits&m

...ayout_eh_frame_section, at .././../gold/object.cc:1309 It is that place: https://github.com/gittup/binutils/blob/gittup/gold/object.cc#L1372 Did not investigate it, but it looks it is place (https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-06/msg00097.html) mentioned in comment for https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&m=144683596826489. LLD ~head fails here https://github.com/llvm-mirror/lld/blob/master/ELF/InputFiles.cpp#L392 as we are trying to do cast to InputSection, though .eh_frame is not regular InputSection but EhInputSection. Basing on all above I supposed it should be fine to not emit SHF_LINK_OR...

...e IR pass that is creating an llvm.expect, it should be able to create branch weight metadata directly instead. Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the patches. For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for llvm.expect: https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160422/d8861332/attachment.html>

...>> It is that place: >> https://github.com/gittup/binutils/blob/gittup/gold/object.cc#L1372 >> Did not investigate it, but it looks it is place >> (https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-06/msg00097.html) >> mentioned in comment for >> https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=144683596826489. > >I've committed a patch in gold that should fix this problem: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-11/msg00541.html > >Can you try gold again with this patch applied? You should at least >get a little further. > >If it still doesn'...

...;m > not going to object strongly if the consensus goes the other way. > > > Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the > patches. > > For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for > llvm.expect: > https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing listllvm-dev at lists.llvm.orghttp://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scr...

...rated should greatly simplifies >the logic of identical code folding when comparing not only function >contents but exception handler information. I tried to investigate how to implement this and suddenly found that Rafael looks already tried to to the same in 2015: https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=144683596826489. Basing on comments, approach worked but had slowdowns for bfd and crashed gold (or made it slower too). I can try to investigate this again and either reimplement or ressurrect that code to check how multiple .eh_frame sections behave nowadays, but few things are unclear fo...

...t; create branch weight metadata directly instead. >> >> Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the >> patches. >> >> For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for >> llvm.expect: >> https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev >> >> > -------------- next par...

...gt;>> >>>> Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the >>>> patches. >>>> >>>> For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for >>>> llvm.expect: >>>> https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org >>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo...

...nd this summer as well. I'm particularly interested in the SAFECode project and LLVM's general security and auditing features. I haven't worked a ton with LLVM in the past, but I have a mostly finished strnlen(3) optimization I've been meaning to resubmit: https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=145485679322322&amp;w=2 I also worked with Martin Natano to port the integer overflow checker to OpenBSD and build a working kernel and userland with it. We now have a patch that integrates it into the full system build through libc, and fixed a number of bugs in the process. Because of my...

...ent: “ [LLVMdev] More careful treatment of floating point exceptions" http://marc.info/?l=llvm-dev&amp;m=141113983302113&amp;w=2 And this is the thread where most of the discussion on the design occurred: "[PATCH] Flag to enable IEEE-754 friendly FP optimizations” http://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=141235814915999&amp;w=2 Since Chandler raised some concerns on IRC today, so I figured I should send a heads-up on this topic to allow any one to comment on the current plan. We plan on adding two new FP env flags to the existing FMF (fast-math flags). Without these flags set, the optimizer...

[PATCH 2/4] like for cpustat, introduce the "gtime" (guest time of the task= ) and "cgtime" (guest time of the task children) fields for the tasks. Modify signal_struct and task_struct. Modify /proc/<pid>/stat to dis= play these new fields. Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> -- = ------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net --------------

[PATCH 2/4] like for cpustat, introduce the "gtime" (guest time of the task= ) and "cgtime" (guest time of the task children) fields for the tasks. Modify signal_struct and task_struct. Modify /proc/<pid>/stat to dis= play these new fields. Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@bull.net> -- = ------------- Laurent.Vivier@bull.net --------------

...place: >>> https://github.com/gittup/binutils/blob/gittup/gold/object.cc#L1372 >>> Did not investigate it, but it looks it is place >>> (https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2009-06/msg00097.html) >>> mentioned in comment for >>> https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=144683596826489. >> >>I've committed a patch in gold that should fix this problem: >> >> https://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2017-11/msg00541.html >> >>Can you try gold again with this patch applied? You should at least >>get a little further. &amp;g...

...e IR pass that is creating an llvm.expect, it should be able to create branch weight metadata directly instead. Please let me know if you see any problems with this proposal or the patches. For reference, here's the original post-commit review thread for llvm.expect: https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits <https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4> &amp;m=130997676129580&amp;w=4 _______________________________________________ LLVM Developers mailing list llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/list...

...eful treatment of floating point exceptions" > http://marc.info/?l=llvm-dev&amp;m=141113983302113&amp;w=2 > And this is the thread where most of the discussion on the design > occurred: "[PATCH] Flag to enable IEEE-754 friendly FP > optimizations” > http://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=141235814915999&amp;w=2 > > Since Chandler raised some concerns on IRC today, so I figured I > should send a heads-up on this topic to allow any one to comment on > the current plan. > > We plan on adding two new FP env flags to the existing FMF (fast-math > flags). Wit...

>Thank you for taking a look. I think that the answer depends on how much slower GNU linkers are with separate .eh_frame sections. If it is not too slow, it may make >sense to generate split .eh_frame sections unconditionally. Otherwise, we might want to add a new option so that clang doesn't produce split .eh_frame sections by >default. I'll start investigating the

...;m > particularly interested in the SAFECode project and LLVM's general > security and auditing features. I haven't worked a ton with LLVM in the > past, but I have a mostly finished strnlen(3) optimization I've been > meaning to resubmit: > > https://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=145485679322322&amp;w=2 > > I also worked with Martin Natano to port the integer overflow checker to > OpenBSD and build a working kernel and userland with it. We now have a > patch that integrates it into the full system build through libc, and > fixed a number of bugs in the...

...g point exceptions" > > http://marc.info/?l=llvm-dev&amp;m=141113983302113&amp;w=2 > > And this is the thread where most of the discussion on the design > > occurred: "[PATCH] Flag to enable IEEE-754 friendly FP > > optimizations” > > http://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=141235814915999&amp;w=2 > > > > Since Chandler raised some concerns on IRC today, so I figured I > > should send a heads-up on this topic to allow any one to comment on > > the current plan. > > > > We plan on adding two new FP env flags to the existing F...

...t;> http://marc.info/?l=llvm-dev&amp;m=141113983302113&amp;w=2 >>>> And this is the thread where most of the discussion on the design >>>> occurred: "[PATCH] Flag to enable IEEE-754 friendly FP >>>> optimizations” >>>> http://marc.info/?l=llvm-commits&amp;m=141235814915999&amp;w=2 >>>> >>>> Since Chandler raised some concerns on IRC today, so I figured I >>>> should send a heads-up on this topic to allow any one to comment on >>>> the current plan. >>>> >>>> We plan on add...

Hi Andy, I'm working on defining new machine model for my target, But I don't understand how to define the in-order machine (reservation tables) in new model. For example, if target has IF ID EX WB stages should I do: let BufferSize=0 in { def IF: ProcResource<1>; def ID: ProcResource<1>; def EX: ProcResource<1>; def WB: ProcResource<1>; } def :