search for: machinery

Anyone have opinions on whether the cast machinery should be taught to handle unique_ptr? Presumably that'd involve cast, etc, returning raw pointers when it was passed references to unique_ptr, which might be surprising/error-prone? But the only errors would be: 1) double delete - if the result of the cast was used to take ownership because...

...for llvm? > > Closest thing I know is gcj + dragonegg, but it is a lot of work to be > done in gcj before it works with dragonegg. the main issue I know about is that gcj wants to output constructors and destructors directly to the assembly file, and completely bypasses gcc's generic machinery for this (probably because gcj predates that machinery). This is one reason why you can't do link-time optimization with gcc (which relies on everything going through the generic gcc machinery) and is also why java compiled with dragonegg doesn't work (generated assembler lacks constructors...

...t hash the > MDNodes > > that affect the > > type MDNode, at front end, the AST contains more information and should > be > > harder to hash. > > It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information > post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for > structs will be sufficient. By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the type hashing at the back end? > However, if it's to save space during an > LTO link then we'll want to do it in the front end. > Yes, my purpose here is to save...

...ctually think this is the wrong approach, and I don't think it's quite what Eli or I am suggestion (of course, Eli may want to clarify, I'm only really clarifying what *I'm* suggesting. > > I think all of the warnings should be in the frontend, using the standard and existing machinery for generating, controlling, and displaying a warning. We already know how to do that well. The difference is that these warnings will need to query the LLVM layer for detailed information through some defined API, and base the warning on this information. This accomplishes two things: > > 1...

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > >> It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information > >> post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for > >> structs will be sufficient. > > > > > > By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the > type > > hashing at the back end? > > > > I am, yes, since there's no other place we do currently. > > >&gt...

...> I actually think this is the wrong approach, and I don't think it's quite what Eli or I am suggestion (of course, Eli may want to clarify, I'm only really clarifying what *I'm* suggesting. I think all of the warnings should be in the frontend, using the standard and existing machinery for generating, controlling, and displaying a warning. We already know how to do that well. The difference is that these warnings will need to query the LLVM layer for detailed information through some defined API, and base the warning on this information. This accomplishes two things: 1) It ensur...

...think this is the wrong approach, and I don't think it's quite what Eli or I am suggestion (of course, Eli may want to clarify, I'm only really clarifying what *I'm* suggesting. >> >> I think all of the warnings should be in the frontend, using the standard and existing machinery for generating, controlling, and displaying a warning. We already know how to do that well. The difference is that these warnings will need to query the LLVM layer for detailed information through some defined API, and base the warning on this information. This accomplishes two things: >> &g...

...code modules within the llvm build system? (I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation as it looks like you're discussing something that might be relevant to my work. Sorry I'm not up to speed on the full context of the discussion...) If you are asking whether anyone is using machinery in LLVM's build system to compile programs into LLVM bitcode files, the answer is yes. The LLVM Makefile machinery is used not only by LLVM but by LLVM sub-projects like SAFECode, Automatic Pool Allocation, and others. Practically every project I work on (either research or open-source) i...

...: > Since there have been no answers, I will have to start at the > beginning. > > One of the first changes I'd like to try is adding the additional > registers and the AAPCS VFP variant calling conventions. Is there a > reason why the ARM Target isn't using the CCState machinery? Please clarify. I am not sure what you mean by CCState machinery. Evan > > > Deep > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Sandeep Patel > <deeppatel1987 at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Is anybody actively working on additional ARM target support? >> >> I...

>> It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information >> post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for >> structs will be sufficient. > > > By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the type > hashing at the back end? > I am, yes, since there's no other place we do currently. >> >> However, if it's to save space during...

...move broader than that you just mentioned. The natural separation of the infrastructure into different parts can be across the following lines: - the parallel model of programming - these can be OpenMP, OpenACC, CilkPlus, OpenCL, StreamExecutor, CUDA, C++ parallel extensions, etc. - the offloading machinery to be used by any of those above and providing unified interfaces across all targets to be supported - the performance libraries collection that can be re-used in different programming models and be targeting different host/targets planforms I would like to touch the 2nd bullet, since I had most e...

On Jul 16, 2013, at 5:51 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Quentin Colombet <qcolombet at apple.com> wrote: >> ** Advices Needed ** >> >> 1. Decide whether or not we want such capabilities (if we do not we may just >> add sporadically the support for a new warning/group of warning/error). >> 2. Come

So for mergeable bufs, we use ewma machinery to guess the correct buffer size. If we don't guess correctly, XDP has to do aggressive copies. Problem is, xdp paths do not update the ewma at all, except sometimes with XDP_PASS. So whatever we happen to have before we attach XDP, will mostly stay around. The fix is probably to update ewma...

So for mergeable bufs, we use ewma machinery to guess the correct buffer size. If we don't guess correctly, XDP has to do aggressive copies. Problem is, xdp paths do not update the ewma at all, except sometimes with XDP_PASS. So whatever we happen to have before we attach XDP, will mostly stay around. The fix is probably to update ewma...

...Christopher wrote: >> (I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation as it looks like you're discussing something that might be relevant to my work. Sorry I'm not up to speed on the full context of the discussion...) >> >> If you are asking whether anyone is using machinery in LLVM's build system to compile programs into LLVM bitcode files, the answer is yes. The LLVM Makefile machinery is used not only by LLVM but by LLVM sub-projects like SAFECode, Automatic Pool Allocation, and others. Practically every project I work on (either research or open-source) is or...

>> > > (I'm jumping into the middle of this conversation as it looks like you're discussing something that might be relevant to my work. Sorry I'm not up to speed on the full context of the discussion...) > > If you are asking whether anyone is using machinery in LLVM's build system to compile programs into LLVM bitcode files, the answer is yes. The LLVM Makefile machinery is used not only by LLVM but by LLVM sub-projects like SAFECode, Automatic Pool Allocation, and others. Practically every project I work on (either research or open-source) is or...

...dyn_cast on A, I need to do a bunch of extra work: 1) Since dyn_cast uses reinterpret_cast rather than static_cast, the pointer value won't get adjusted by the cast operation, making the pointer invalid. I end up having to redefine "cast_convert_val" and other parts of the casting machinery for my type, so that it uses static_cast. 2) In every class B which derives from A, it seems like I have to have 4 overloads of 'classof': One for B, one for A, and one for each of A's top-most ancestors. Otherwise I get ambiguity errors. What I am wondering is, is this use case su...

...;re not on the same page. When I say exception handler, I mean any code the unwinding in-turn calls - i.e. anything in a catch block. > > In practice, when could we infer readnone without inferring nounwind? > The only thing in LLVM that can throw is a call or intrinsic call to > EH machinery, and that instruction will need to be attributed with > knowledge of the exception handler. If the exception handler really > doesn't write memory that LLVM can read, then we can mark it readonly, > and our normal local inference will work. What do you mean? Any call, except for th...

...man.ren at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> It depends upon the goals. If the goal is to make debug information >> >> post-link smaller then just using the type hashing machinery for >> >> structs will be sufficient. >> > >> > >> > By "the type hashing machinery for structs", are you referring to the >> type >> > hashing at the back end? >> > >> >> I am, yes, since there's no other plac...

...is is the wrong approach, and I don't think it's quite what Eli or I am suggestion (of course, Eli may want to clarify, I'm only really clarifying what *I'm* suggesting. >>> >>> I think all of the warnings should be in the frontend, using the standard and existing machinery for generating, controlling, and displaying a warning. We already know how to do that well. The difference is that these warnings will need to query the LLVM layer for detailed information through some defined API, and base the warning on this information. This accomplishes two things: >>>...