search for: monrocq

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > - lambda v1.0 [2] > - local types as template arguments > - r-value 2.0 [3] > - static_assert > - built-in type traits This isn't very encouragin...

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq > <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > > - lambda v1.0 [2] > > - local types as template arguments > > - r-value 2.0 [3] > > - static_assert > > - built-in typ...

On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Matthieu Monrocq < matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq >> <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: >> > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3...

...(trunk) Target: i386-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix [root at localhost opensrc]# cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release 6.2 (Final) Matthieu, Thanks for the fix and let me try again with latest trunk. ~Umesh On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Matthieu Monrocq < matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > >> On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: >> >> Hi All , >> >> Was trying to build the LLVM src from >> ht...

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >> On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq >&...

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to > build the same and clang poped up with below error . > > > First, it sounds like you're building LLVM

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq >> <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, >> >> but one of the major...

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences > >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment > here? > > > > Unless

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment here? > > Unless I'm misreading the buildbots, we don't actually have anything > trying to build with MSVC. Have we considered how

On 8 January 2013 18:40, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com>wrote: > I do believe it's undefined. > > §5.2.1 Subscripting [expr.sub] > ... > §5.7 Additive operators [expr.add] > ... > Still, doesn't explicitly say it's undefined. I agree this gives the freedom of implementers to extend...

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, >> but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when trying to devirtualize &...

On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq > <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, > >> but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when...

On Aug 17, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > My surprise stems from the fact that Clang/LLVM seems to reserve (at least in its bytecode) space for all temporary variables, not taking into account that some are mutually exclusive. I would have expected the space to be folded. However, since this is LLVM IR, and not the final assem...

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:11 AM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 8 January 2013 18:40, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> I do believe it's undefined. >> >> §5.2.1 Subscripting [expr.sub] >> ... >> §5.7 Additive operators [expr.add] >> ... > > > Still, doesn't explicitly say it's undefined. That'...

On 16 Nov 2011, at 19:45, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > Many thanks David, it had been a while (6 months I guess) since the last benchmark I saw and I was wondering how the new Clang/LLVM compared to GCC! > > One comment though, the graphs are great, however the alternance of "less is better"/"more is better" make...

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 8 January 2013 16:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix user's stupidity" here - could you >> clarify? >> > > Buffer overrun on foo[20] and relying on it for bar[20]. > > It might not even be an

Hello, at the moment the devirtualization of calls is performed in Clang (as far as I understand) whilst inlining and constant propagation are the optimizer's (LLVM) job. It is probably necessary for Clang to perform "some" devirtualization (the meaning of `final` is not known to LLVM), however all the stuff to determine what the dynamic type of a variable is seems redundant with

...rently possible with a branch to unreachable, except llvm throws > out the unreachable code in SimplyCFG before any optimizations run - so > we need to see if we can keep them around longer - there are some PRs > filed for this but I haven't made much progress on it > From: Matthieu Monrocq > Sent: 9/29/2012 4:41 PM > To: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev > Subject: [cfe-dev] Inlining and virtualization in Clang/LLVM > Hello, > > at the moment the devirtualization of calls is performed in Clang (as > far as I understand) whilst inlining and constant propagation are...

...his assertion is currently possible with a branch to unreachable, except llvm throws out the unreachable code in SimplyCFG before any optimizations run - so we need to see if we can keep them around longer - there are some PRs filed for this but I haven't made much progress on it From: Matthieu Monrocq Sent: 9/29/2012 4:41 PM To: cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu; llvmdev Subject: [cfe-dev] Inlining and virtualization in Clang/LLVM Hello, at the moment the devirtualization of calls is performed in Clang (as far as I understand) whilst inlining and constant propagation are the optimizer's (LLVM) job. I...

Following a question on StackOverflow [1], I was wondering if for big allocations, LLVM would "delay" the allocation or rather perform it upfront. The following code was thus submitted to the LLVM Try Out page: void doSomething(char*,char*); void function(bool b) { char b1[1 * 1024]; if( b ) { char b2[1 * 1024]; doSomething(b1, b2); } else { char