search for: evgen

On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com>wrote: > Also note that tail merging of calls happens in CodeGen, not in > SimplifyCFG. > Hi Evgenly, What we need is the general information that we want to avoid too much code motion, from choosing the passes, to choosing steps on the pas...

AFAIU, it's not OK for -g to affect code generation. I agree with the rest of your plan. On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Also note that tail merging of calls happens in CodeGen, not in >> SimplifyCFG. > > > Hi Evgenly, > > What we need is the general information that we want to avoid too much code > motion, from choo...

Reid, by the other CFG simplification, do you mean this case in http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2214? 1: if (x < 0) 2: if (y < 0) 3: do_something(); Yes, this is only bad for MSan (and probably for sampling-based PGO, but that's a whole different story). But the current version of D2214 disables this optimization at SimplifyUncondBranch() point, which also covers

On 26 November 2013 16:59, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > I'd support disabling tail merging of calls at -O1. The other CFG > simplification doesn't seem like that big of a deal though for general > debugging, though. > So, do we have two ways of running SimplifyCFG? One for O1 and one for O2+, and selectively disabling parts of it? --renato --------------

...agree with the > rest of your plan. That's correct, -g must not affect code generation. This is a fundamental mantra among debug-info people. > > > On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> > wrote: > > On 27 November 2013 08:43, Evgeniy Stepanov > <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Also note that tail merging of calls happens in CodeGen, not in > >> SimplifyCFG. > > > > > > Hi Evgenly, > > > > What we need is the general information that we...

The following series of patches fill in most of the gaps in the OCaml bindings to libxl, to make them useful for clients such as xapi/xenopsd (from XCP). There are a number of bugfixes to the existing bindings as well. I have an experimental version of xenopsd that successfully uses the new bindings. An earlier version of the first half of the series was submitted to the last by Ian Campbell on