search for: llvmbuilder

Hello llvm dev peeps I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the methods in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I thought about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become virtual. However, the base class methods return spec...

I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, and switched llvm-gcc over to use it. This class is based on feedback Tom Tromey gave on LLVM way back here: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2006-April/005581.html Basically, when creating a frontend, you end up creating a lot of instructions....

On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, > It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or 2.0 > and not cvs ? It is there: http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup -Chris -- http://nondo...

On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > Hello llvm dev peeps > > I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to > reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the > methods > in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I > thought > about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become > virtual. However, the...

Hi, > Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and > rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd > argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding > functionality for debugging purposes. this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how useful a debug flag would rea...

> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into >>> llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, >> It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or >> 2.0 >> and not cvs ? > > It is there: > http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h?rev=HEAD&content-type=...

Duncan Sands wrote: >> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and >> rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd >> argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding >> functionality for debugging purposes. >> > > this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to m...

I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to exist. Has it purposely been removed? ------------------------------------ llvm_optimized/include ../../llvm-gcc-4.0/gcc/llvm-backend.cpp -o llvm-backend.o In file included from ../../llvm-gcc-4.0/gcc/l...

> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or 2.0 and not cvs ? Aaron

Dominic Hamon wrote: > Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, >>> I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old >>> non-folding functionality for debugging purposes. >>> >> >> this plan sounds good to me. However...

Hi, the functionality of LLVMFoldingBuilder has been folded into LLVMBuilder, which has been renamed to IRBuilder. If you were using LLVMFoldingBuilder then it should be enough to rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to IRBuilder everywhere (and change the #include from LLVMBuilder to IRBuilder). If you were using LLVMBuilder then as well as renaming LLVMBuilder to IRBuilder you may...

Hola LLVMers, We saw a problem with some code in LiveIntervalAnalysis.h/.c which we've fixed locally. We'd like to get a patch to the mainline and want to know how you'd like it fixed. A couple of things come together to cause the problem: struct Idx2MBBCompare { bool operator()(const IdxMBBPair &LHS, const IdxMBBPair &RHS) const { return LHS.first <

>> On Sun, 27 May 2007, Aaron Gray wrote: >>>> I just checked in a new LLVMBuilder class into >>>> llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h, >>> It does not seem to be on the LLVM cvsweb, is that still showing 1.9 or >>> 2.0 >>> and not cvs ? >> >> It is there: >> http://llvm.org/cvsweb/cvsweb.cgi/llvm/include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h?...

...s Lattner: > On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > > > Would it be reasonable for me to submit a patch whereby [...] the > > LLVMFoldingBuilder methods become virtual overrides of the base > > class methods? > > No, please don't do this. The idea of llvmbuilder is that it is a > "free" wrapper around the other existing API calls. Making the > methods virtual would make them much more expensive. Wouldn't the class of the objects be known at compile time in most cases? This is essentially just a case of precomputing constants, so I...

...at the patch doesn't > break anything. > > Since this is my first patch to LLVM and I've only been using LLVM > for two weeks, please be gentle with me. If I made any glaring > submission errors, I'll gladly fix them. > > -Rich > Index: include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h > =================================================================== > --- include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h (revision 505) > +++ include/llvm/Support/LLVMBuilder.h (working copy) > @@ -538,6 +538,95 @@ > } > > // > = > = > =---------------------------------...

...constant fold if Ptr is a constant. + CallInst *CreateCall(Value *Callee, const char *Name = "") { + return Insert(CallInst::Create(Callee, Name)); You should be indenting by two spaces (I think Chris mentioned this). - DEFINE_SIMPLE_CONVERSION_FUNCTIONS(LLVMFoldingBuilder, LLVMBuilderRef ) + DEFINE_SIMPLE_CONVERSION_FUNCTIONS(IRBuilder, LLVMBuilderRef ) DEFINE_SIMPLE_CONVERSION_FUNCTIONS(PATypeHolder, LLVMTypeHandleRef ) Please add spaces so that these line up again. -<p>Well, that was easy :). In practice, we recommend always using ... +<p&g...

...ything. Since this is my first patch to LLVM and I've only been using LLVM for two weeks, please be gentle with me. If I made any glaring submission errors, I'll gladly fix them. -Rich -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: llvmbuilder.patch URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20071217/7cb6fd27/attachment.ksh>

> I am trying to compile llvm gcc 4.0 from svn today and I'm getting the > error below. It looks like the file LLVMBuilder.h. I looked in past > versions of LLVM and that file exists; however, it not longer seams to > exist. Has it purposely been removed? llvm-gcc 4.0 is no longer supported (as of 2.2): http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-February/012416.html To answer your question, LLVMBuilder.h...

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> No, please don't do this. The idea of llvmbuilder is that it is a >> "free" wrapper around the other existing API calls. Making the >> methods virtual would make them much more expensive. > > Wouldn't the class of the objects be known at compile time in most > cases? This is essentially just a case of precomputi...

On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > Dominic Hamon wrote: >> Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the >>>> case, I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the >>>> old non-folding functionality for debugging purposes. >>>> >>> >>> this plan sound...