search for: leftfield

On Aug 27, 2012, at 11:37 AM, gohman at apple.com wrote: > On Aug 24, 2012, at 5:56 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > > > If we can also describe the alignment padding inserted at the end of a struct when it is placed in an array, then we can improve the current LoopIdiom pass to build more memcpys. I would think that would be attached to the struct definition. > > Perhaps, thoug...

As you might have noticed, we’ve begun landing patches to open source the Sony PlayStation®4 system compiler. Many more are coming. I’d like to propose that I be named code owner for this platform. I already have this role internally for open source. It feels necessary to establish as part of the process to handle external contributions. ----------------------------------------- Alex Rosenberg

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > Is your answer the same if we're talking about an asm version of zlib > that's faster than the compiled version? Because that's a thing. If zlib is our bottleneck... wow we have bigger issues. And as we work on a compiler, I kinda hope we can produce a reasona...

...of the PS4 triple. Sony is still committed to LLVM and I look forward to continue to work with them in open source. Sony has asked that I nominate Paul Robinson to become code owner. +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alexander M. Rosenberg <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org> | | Nobody cares what I say, so no disclaimer appears here. |

I know it's quick to ask, but when might support for the new Apple A7 processor appear in tree? Is the 64-bit architecture the same as ARMv8, or will we have a much bigger set of changes to contend with? Alex

On 24 August 2014 02:05, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > But it must. If you want to be able to use LLVM DLLs inside a Windows app, it has to be built with MSVC because they have their own C++ ABI. At some point, Clang will support Microsoft's ABI well enough to consider a bootstrap instead. Ah, there's my answer! I thought...

On Sep 10, 2013, at 4:17 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > I know it's quick to ask, but when might support for the new Apple A7 processor appear in tree? > > Is the 64-bit architecture the same as ARMv8, or will we have a much bigger set of changes to contend with? Hi Alex, A number of you have asked about the 64-bit CPU...

...tive-wrapped ThinLTO easier to use for the same reasons (e.g. > compatibility with existing native toolchains), so I don't expect > this to be Google specific. > > Thanks, > Teresa > > On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg > <alexr at leftfield.org <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org>> wrote: > > I think I've read all the feedback posted regarding your May > proposal. I have yet to see a single response that wants > native object wrapped bitcode. > > If the only use for native obje...

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > I agree that processing of linker scripts is a "flavor" issue. We have an in-house linker that processes them and has a different command line than GNU ld, so we'll want to process them in that "flavor" as we'll. Is it the same language that GNU ld a...

...ibute at all. Alex On Oct 23, 2012, at 10:00 PM, Manman Ren wrote: > > Byval does not work for me, it will try to split the struct to fit into available core registers and the rest on stack. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > >> In llvm-gcc, this decision was handled near llvm-arm.cpp:2737 in llvm_arm_aggregate_partially_passed_in_regs(). Basically, available registers would be counted up and if the HA didn't fit, it went byval instead. >> >> I agree that we should unify this...

On 3 Dec 2014, at 23:36, Robert Lougher <rob.lougher at gmail.com> wrote: > On 2 December 2014 at 22:18, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: >> >> Our C library amplifies this problem by being in a dynamic library, so the >> call has additional overhead, which for small trip counts swamps the >> copy/set. >> > > I can't imagine we're the only platform (now or in the future) t...

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > This it totally "armchair quarterbacking," but I am a little frustrated > that we've come to conflate flavors and targets. > > The original intent of flavors was to internally translate each flavor > into a neutral lld-native command line syntax. We no...

On Dec 3, 2014, at 6:12 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Tue Dec 02 2014 at 12:12:01 PM Robert Lougher <rob.lougher at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 2 December 2014 at 19:57, Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at britannica.bec.de> wrote: >> > On Tue, Dec 02, 2014 at 07:23:01PM +0000, Robert Lougher wrote: >> >> In

Byval does not work for me, it will try to split the struct to fit into available core registers and the rest on stack. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 23, 2012, at 5:01 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > In llvm-gcc, this decision was handled near llvm-arm.cpp:2737 in llvm_arm_aggregate_partially_passed_in_regs(). Basically, available registers would be counted up and if the HA didn't fit, it went byval instead. > > I agree that we should unify this sort of logic in...

...__________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev +------------------------------------------------------------+ | Alexander M. Rosenberg <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org> | | Nobody cares what I say, so no disclaimer appears here. |

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > As all of these transforms are 1-to-1, can we still support the older metadata and convert it on the fly? > I'd prefer not to keep all of that code around to interpret both versions without a very good reason. -eric > Alex > >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM,...

...> > -Chris > > <tablegen.diff> > <impossible_enum.diff> > >> On Dec 19, 2014, at 8:56 AM, Chris Bieneman <beanz at apple.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: >>> >>> Putting aside the several minor bikesheds we will get to if we go this route, how close does this approach get to the code shrink you were originally trying to achieve? >> >> I haven't yet adjusted my tablegen changes to take advantage of t...

> On Dec 19, 2014, at 12:34 AM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > > Putting aside the several minor bikesheds we will get to if we go this route, how close does this approach get to the code shrink you were originally trying to achieve? I haven't yet adjusted my tablegen changes to take advantage of the, but it is on my list for today...

...>> (e.g. compatibility with existing native toolchains), so I >> don't expect this to be Google specific. >> >> Thanks, >> Teresa >> >> On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Alex Rosenberg >> <alexr at leftfield.org <mailto:alexr at leftfield.org>> wrote: >> >> I think I've read all the feedback posted regarding your >> May proposal. I have yet to see a single response that >> wants native object wrapped bitcode. >> >>...

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 11:35 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > How is this use case different from the LTO-supported toolchains shipped > by other vendors such as Apple? Do they have this theoretical problem too? > > If the issue is solely constrained to debug info metadata, then why not > use metadata to describe the format/ve...