search for: mialot

...or be >> consistent across tools (either always read from stdin or no default at all >> /give error messages) >> >> >> >> *From:* James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:31 AM >> *To:* Alex Brachet-Mialot <alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> >> *Cc:* Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>; LLVMDev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com>; Chen, >> Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [llvm-dev] [RF...

Like James, Michael suggested, I would prefer the default behavior be consistent across tools (either always read from stdin or no default at all /give error messages) From: James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2019 2:31 AM To: Alex Brachet-Mialot <alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> Cc: Fāng-ruì Sòng <maskray at google.com>; LLVMDev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Jordan Rupprecht <rupprecht at google.com>; Chen, Yuanfang <Yuanfang.Chen at sony.com> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] [tools] Changing Behavior of LLVM binu...

...a.out behavior may not be used by many people. > If people don't care too much > about these utilities' compatibility with GNU, deleting the default a.out > LGTM. > > (I am opposed to make more utilities default to a.out) > > On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 9:02 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> > Does anyone actually use the default to a.out behavior? >> This is a good point. What bugs me is continuity across the tools, I >> agree with you that it isn't particularly useful to default to a.out. Bu...

...so I think there is some precedence for us slightly modifying behavior when we can reasonably say things will not happen, like the file "-" existing. On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 8:28 PM Michael Spencer <bigcheesegs at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:58 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Some binutils, nm comes to mind, when to input file is specified will >> default to a.out. Others do not do this and read from stdin by default. The >> rest of this email will be specifically referencing these wh...

...it clear for me: does this imply that there’s indeed no way on the current version to tell the compiler or Clang to optimize this? Thanks, Joan > On 8 Aug 2019, at 18:30, Tim Northover via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 17:08, Alex Brachet-Mialot via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> This might not be the workaround you want because it is only available in C, but you can use restrict to allow such optimizations. > > It also doesn't work in Clang unfortunately. We can only represent > restrict on...

Thanks for the reply. Typing in my username and clicking "Forgot password?" got me a link I could use to log in. It'd still be good if federated login worked again. Is there an upstream issue for this? On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 5:09 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot < alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes this was broken for me too, there was another post on here about this > a few weeks ago too. I forget what I did to fix it. I think I just logged > in with my email and somehow got my account back, I think because I used > the email...

Good news, I was able to use up to 37 cores for LLVM build with LLD. The build speed, did not measure precisely though, is comparable to the build with GNU ld case. Thank you all for your help! On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:04 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot < alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes unfortunately that would limit you to 4 cores. > > There’s no easy way to use lld with —no-threads with our build system at > the moment unfortunately. > > I also had just been using ld.gold, but will switch now that numactl wo...

...t;> Good news, I was able to use up to 37 cores for LLVM build with LLD. >> The build speed, did not measure precisely though, is comparable to the >> build with GNU ld case. >> >> Thank you all for your help! >> >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:04 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot < >> alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes unfortunately that would limit you to 4 cores. >>> >>> There’s no easy way to use lld with —no-threads with our build system at >>> the moment unfortunately. >>> >>> I also...

...ly not the -O flag that created the problem. But it pointed me in the right direction, when I passed -fno-experimental-new-pass-manager it started to show the error. My guess is that the new pass manager is more aggressive in removing UB? Thanks, Tobias On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 5:29 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot <alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > > I haven’t looked at the code gen yet because I’m not on my computer right now but I suspect that at -Os the compiler is optimizing this away because it knows it to be undefined behavior. Try with -O0. > > On Mon, Feb 3, 2020 at 10:53 AM...

...LLVM build with LLD. > >> The build speed, did not measure precisely though, is comparable to the > >> build with GNU ld case. > >> > >> Thank you all for your help! > >> > >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:04 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot < > >> alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com <mailto:alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >>> Yes unfortunately that would limit you to 4 cores. > >>> > >>> There’s no easy way to use lld with —no-threads with...

...moment. On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:42 AM Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com> wrote: > Would `taskset -c 0-3 ninja check-all -j4` work? > > > > *De :* Itaru Kitayama <itaru.kitayama at gmail.com> > *Envoyé :* March 28, 2020 3:37 PM > *À :* Alex Brachet-Mialot <alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> > *Cc :* Alexandre Ganea <alexandre.ganea at ubisoft.com>; LLVM Dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Nemanja Ivanovic <nemanja.i.ibm at gmail.com> > *Objet :* Re: [llvm-dev] LLD issue on a massively parallel build machine > > &...

...t; > If you want to explore your original suggestion further, and need help > doing so, you probably need to give a bit more context as to what you've > tried and what didn't work about it. > > Regards, > > James > > > On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 at 21:28, Alex Brachet-Mialot via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I want to write unit tests for a project I am working on. I need to >> create object files, preferably I want to have yaml files in the source >> tree and have cmake generate object files us...

...d, did not measure precisely though, is comparable >> to the >> > >> build with GNU ld case. >> > >> >> > >> Thank you all for your help! >> > >> >> > >> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 5:04 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot < >> > >> alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com <mailto:alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com>> >> wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> Yes unfortunately that would limit you to 4 cores. >> > >>> >> > >>>...

Some binutils, nm comes to mind, when to input file is specified will default to a.out. Others do not do this and read from stdin by default. The rest of this email will be specifically referencing these which read from stdin, and not the tools which for various reasons do things differently. I propose that we change the behavior of these tools to use a.out when appropriate. By appropriate I mean

Hi, I want to write unit tests for a project I am working on. I need to create object files, preferably I want to have yaml files in the source tree and have cmake generate object files using yaml2obj. Does anyone know what I would put in the CMakeLists.txt to get this behavior? For a concrete example if I didn’t explain clearly: In llvm/unittests/Object I would maybe have an Inputs directory,

$ free -g total used free shared buff/cache available Mem: 376 149 20 1 207 225 Swap: 3 0 3 Too small swap size for a 72-core login machine? On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 4:28 AM Alex Brachet-Mialot < alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > Enable threads is for building llvm with or without thread support. To my > knowledge it has no effect on the build system. > > Like was discussed above you could try limiting the number of processes > created (assuming your lld was...

This might not be the workaround you want because it is only available in C, but you can use restrict to allow such optimizations. https://godbolt.org/z/2gQ26f Alex On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 11:50 AM Michael Kruse via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > char* scscx is an universal pointer and may point to anything, > including itself. That is, scscx might

...nes starting with `@parameter` and apply the same name conversion rules to identifiers after `@parameter`. Since lld doesn't use doxygen comments, it is fine for now, but before moving forward, I'll address that. Thank you for pointing that out. On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:20 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot < alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: > Also, now that I think about it, I believe doxygen will fail to build if > the @parameter comments aren't changed to match the new names, my guess is > it case sensitive. So perhaps we will need to find a way to manually change > the...

...same name conversion rules to identifiers >> after `@parameter`. Since lld doesn't use doxygen comments, it is >> fine for now, but before moving forward, I'll address that. Thank >> you for pointing that out. >> >> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 8:20 PM Alex Brachet-Mialot >> <alexbrachetmialot at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Also, now that I think about it, I believe doxygen will fail to >> build if the @parameter comments aren't changed to match the new >> names, my guess is it case sensitive. So perhaps we will need to >>...

I'm not sure the idea that enabling pull requests will make it easier for new contributors is fully thought out. Just because more people might be familiar with GitHub, doesn't mean it is superior. I've found the workflow on Phabricator to be really easy. I think many people agree that Phabricator is really good, I don't think we would want to get rid of Phabricator and while its