search for: fjahanian

On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is > possible that > throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all > functions > are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain optimization &g...

Dropping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. David On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: > Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is > possible that > throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all > functions > are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain optimization &g...

...opping opt level should not lead to ABI changes. Otherwise you won't > be able to mix-match O2 and O0 objects either. I was referring to “static functions”. Not that it happens, but something to consider. - Fariborz > > David > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:59 AM, jahanian <fjahanian at apple.com> wrote: >> Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is >> possible that >> throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all >> functions >> are similarly optimized. An example would be under cer...

Wouldn’t implementing this proposal be a red herring? By this I mean, it is possible that throughout the optimization phases, there is an implied assumption that all functions are similarly optimized. An example would be under certain optimization flag, compiler changes calling convention of static functions. - Fariborz On Jun 17, 2013, at 8:58 AM, Andrea_DiBiagio at sn.scee.net wrote: >

...this Build: sschiffli1 > > Build Reason: scheduler > Build Source Stamp: [branch trunk] 162350 > Blamelist: aaronballman,ahatanak,alexfh,anithab,asl,baldrick,bwilson,chandlerc,chapuni,criswell,ctopper,d0k,dblaikie,ddunbar,delesley,dgregor,djasper,dyatkovskiy,echristo,efriedma,evancheng,fjahanian,gps,gribozavr,grosbach,grosser,hanm,hans,hliao,jacksprat,jaykang10,jrose,jush,kcc,klimek,kremenek,matthewbg,mcrosier,mspencer,nadav,nicholas,panzer,pranavb,rafael,rdivacky,resistor,rjmccall,rsmith,rtrieu,spop,spyffe,stoklund,tbrethou,tnorthover,victorm,void,zaks > > BUILD FAILED: failed clang...

...ab,adibiagio,adrian,ahatanak,ajbernal,akaylor,akirtzidis,alexfh,arnolds,arsenm,atrick,ayartsev,bwilson,carlokok,cdavis,chandlerc,chapuni,compnerd,ctopper,d0k,daenzer,dblaikie,ddunbar,delena,delesley,dgregor,dirty,djasper,dsanders,dvyukov,echristo,efriedma,enderby,enea,eugenis,faisalv,fangism,filcab,fjahanian,gribozavr,grosbach,hanm,hans,haoliu,hfinkel,jacksprat,jdennett,jholewinski,jimcownie,joerg,joey,jrose,jtsoftware,kevinqin,klimek,kremenek,kuba,labath,lattner,lhames,logan,lvoufo,majnemer,mgottesman,mkuper,mpopa,mren,mspencer,nadav,nicholas,nico,olesalscheider,papin_g,pcc,predmond,rafael,rdivacky,re...

Hi, I previously made a proposal for adding a pragma for per-function optimization level control due to a number of requests from our customers (See http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.clang.devel/28958 for the previous discussion), however the discussion was inconclusive. Some of my colleagues recently had the opportunity to discuss the proposal with a number of people at and

Hi Reza, -O4 is the highest level of LLVM optimization that I know of. But, I don't know if it has been tried on Spec2006. IIRC, Dan Gohman has run Spec. tests with LLVM, so he can provide more info. - fariborz On Jul 19, 2010, at 6:06 PM, Reza Yazdani wrote: > Hi, > > What are the best options to compile Spec2006 with LLVM compilers to > get the best performance numbers

Building llvm is failing for me today. I am using clang++ to build (which has not changed). llvm[2]: Compiling EDMain.cpp for Debug+Asserts build (PIC) EDMain.cpp:267:39: error: C-style cast from '::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka 'int (^)(EDTokenRef)') to 'llvm::EDTokenVisitor_t' (aka 'int (^) (llvm::EDToken *)') is not allowed return

On Jul 22, 2010, at 2:53 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > > On Jul 22, 2010, at 8:57 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: > >> >> Building llvm is failing for me today. I am using clang++ to build >> (which has not changed). >> >> llvm[2]: Compiling EDMain.cpp for Debug+Asserts build (PIC) >> EDMain.cpp:267:39: error: C-style cast from

On Sep 13, 2010, at 11:11 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:58 AM, Fariborz Jahanian wrote: >> > We do emit phis when the semantics aren't defined in terms of memory, > e.g. with expressions that have multiple paths of control flow (like > the > conditional operator or null-checked derived-to-base conversions). But at least for conditional operator, there

On May 6, 2011, at 4:57 PM, Andrew Trick wrote: > On May 6, 2011, at 1:29 AM, Jay Foad wrote: > >> This seems wrong -- if a test fails, it shouldn't stop the whole >> "make", it should just get logged as a failure and continue. > > That's a frustrating aspect of the test-suite Makefiles. I don't know how to work around it without removing the test

On Sep 13, 2010, at 10:46 AM, John McCall wrote: > On Sep 13, 2010, at 1:15 AM, Duncan Sands wrote: >>> I compiled with "llvm-gcc -emit-llvm test.c -S -o test.ll". >>> Attached to this >>> message are the source and the resulting ll output. >> >> compile with optimization. The llvm-gcc front-end "cheats" and >> stores/loads