search for: getimpliedus

Displaying 6 results from an estimated 6 matches for "getimpliedus".

Did you mean: getimplieduser
2008 Apr 29
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] use-diet for review
...onst Use &Op() const { + return OperandTraits<User>::op_begin(const_cast<User*>(this))[Idx]; + } + Use *allocHungoffUses(unsigned) const; + void dropHungoffUses(Use *U) { + if (OperandList == U) { + OperandList = 0; + NumOperands = 0; + } + Use::zap(U, U->getImpliedUser(), true); + } At a very brief scan, it looks like allocHungoffUses and dropHungoffUses can be made protected, not public. And maybe those Op things too. Hmm, and why the operand index for Op is a non-type template parameter? In an optimized build, these should be inlined, while in a non-optimi...
2009 May 04
0
[LLVMdev] PointerIntPair causing trouble
...? As I mentioned I have a patch pending that I'll commit soon that adds a bunch of comments and will document this assumption in the code. I was also wondering if we could get rid of AugmentedUse. Is there any reason we don't just cast the actual end of the list (i.e. the result of getImpliedUser) to a PointerIntPair (or a void* passed to it) directly? Unless there's some specific reason why AugmentedUse exists, it seems to me like it only makes the code more confusing. If you're OK with this change I'll make it along with my comment changes. I wouldn't mind renami...
2009 May 03
2
[LLVMdev] PointerIntPair causing trouble
On 3 Mai, 18:56, Stefanus Du Toit <stefanus.dut... at rapidmind.com> wrote: > On 1-May-09, at 8:35 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > > I still don't understand why this is a problem, but I decreased the > > default to 2 bits.  Please verify that this helps, > > I think I've figured out what's going on, and why no assertions are   > caused by this. It
2013 Jul 14
0
[LLVMdev] Analysis of polly-detect overhead in oggenc
On Sun, Jul 14, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Star Tan <tanmx_star at yeah.net> wrote: > Hi Sebastian, > > Yes, you have pointed an important reason. If we comment this source code > you have listed, then the compile-time overhead for oggenc*8.ll can be > reduced from 40.5261 ( 51.2%) to 20.3100 ( 35.7%). > > I just sent another mail to explain why polly-detect pass leads to >
2008 Apr 29
5
[LLVMdev] [PATCH] use-diet for review
Hi all, I have reported more than enough about the space savings achieved and the associated costs, here comes the current patch for review. Since this one is substantially smaller than the previous one, I did not cut it in pieces. The front part is about headers and the rest the .cpp and other files. Cheers, Gabor -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified
2013 Jul 14
2
[LLVMdev] Analysis of polly-detect overhead in oggenc
Hi Sebastian, Yes, you have pointed an important reason. If we comment this source code you have listed, then the compile-time overhead for oggenc*8.ll can be reduced from 40.5261 ( 51.2%) to 20.3100 ( 35.7%). I just sent another mail to explain why polly-detect pass leads to significant compile-time overhead. Besides the reason you have pointed, another reason is resulted from those string