search for: fhahne

Hi folks, some more information on this feature - as a reminder I started one month ago to work on an expensive check that would verify that pass return status is correctly reported by passes, i.e. no pass return « IR not modified » while actually modifying it. It took ~20 pass fixes to achieve that goal, as many passes were not respectful of that contract, but as of

> Out of curiosity, does change here include changes to names, and other semantically-irrelevant changes (e.g., changing the order of operands in a PHI)? The hashing function used to detect changes is currently very simple: it only accounts for instruction opcode and order. So some semantically-irrelevant changes are ignored (as well as some relevant changes), and some are not. Permuting two

...gt; and provide commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code. > > -- Florian Hahne, PhD Computational Biology Program Division of Public Health Sciences Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M2-B876 PO Box 19024 Seattle, Washington 98109-1024 206-667-3148 fhahne at fhcrc.org

Hi everybody, I am trying to write a simple progress display based on a tcltk toplevel. My first approach was to use the progressBar widget from the BWidget library but since this is not available on every system (missing on at least almost all windows systems, I guess...) I wanted to have a backup there. So my second strategy was to use a simple toplevel with a label and update the tclvariable

Hi folks, Per the documentation[0], whenever an LLVM pass doesn't modify the IR it's run on, it should return `false`--it's okay to return `true` if no change happen, just less optimal. In the New PM area, this is generally translated into a `PreservedAnalyses::all()`. https://reviews.llvm.org/D80916 provides an `EXPENSIVE_CHECK` that computes a hash of the IR before and after the