search for: onon

...ook up a variable in the parent scope when stopped at your second printf() call (line 6). But that's a general bug: we’d have to fix it even if we used DW_AT_start_scope. The upshot of sticking to location lists is that fixing any bugs we find improves optimized debugging workflows. And Swift -Onone debugging workflows as well, since Swift runs certain mandatory optimizations which can make the DWARF at -Onone fairly complex. best, vedant > On Apr 15, 2020, at 9:53 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > As always, concerned about the size grow...

...emit a 'raw' .ll file > >> That's fine, -On, I suppose is basically "absolutely no optimization >> passes" -On seems misleading to me. It conveys opt. level "n" . It could also be read as "on" (as opposed to "off"). How about -Onone? As Chris pointed out, this is really meant for compiler developers, not end-users, so let's make it different from the standard user's scheme and clear to boot. > <configuration name="llvm"> > <group name=".c"> > <item name="compi...

...-time-passes Time individual LLVM passes > -stats Print pass statistics Yes, those are givens. > Also, -instcombine? Okay. > -On seems misleading to me. It conveys opt. level "n" . It could > also be read as "on" (as opposed to "off"). How about -Onone? As > Chris pointed out, this is really meant for compiler developers, not > end-users, so let's make it different from the standard user's scheme > and clear to boot. Chris and I were debating what -On, -O0 (oh zero) and -O1 were supposed to mean. The defs of -O0 and -O1 got ki...

...d a fix is either being worked on or is done. I am using the Xcode 9.0 compiler. I believe the Swift code is 3.x. I have reproduced this using the tot llvm-link. The input modules are from Swift (LucidDreams) and have been compiled -O. The problem doesn't seem to exist when they are compiled -Onone. The llvm-link occurs without error and the subsequent compilation also seems to go fine, but when the resultant llvm-dwarfdump -verbose -verify is run I get a bunch of the following errors: warning: could not find referenced DIE in DIE: 0x0000a33f: DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine [20] *...

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Reid Spencer wrote: > I have a very simple XML document type that I use for configuring XPS > systems. There's only four elements and it follows much the same kind of > grouped name/value pairs that Chris is suggesting. Chris' example would > be like: > <configuration name="llvm"> > <group name=".c"> > <item

...e > > > >> That's fine, -On, I suppose is basically "absolutely no optimization > >> passes" > > -On seems misleading to me. It conveys opt. level "n" . It could also > be read as "on" (as opposed to "off"). How about -Onone? As Chris > pointed out, this is really meant for compiler developers, not > end-users, so let's make it different from the standard user's scheme > and clear to boot. Great point, I agree. -Chris -- http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu/ http://nondot.org/sabre/

...d a fix is either being worked on or is done. I am using the Xcode 9.0 compiler. I believe the Swift code is 3.x. I have reproduced this using the tot llvm-link. The input modules are from Swift (LucidDreams) and have been compiled -O. The problem doesn't seem to exist when they are compiled -Onone. The llvm-link occurs without error and the subsequent compilation also seems to go fine, but when the resultant llvm-dwarfdump -verbose -verify is run I get a bunch of the following errors: warning: could not find referenced DIE     in DIE: 0x0000a33f:      DW_TAG_inlined_subroutine [20] *  ...

On Wed, 2004-08-04 at 10:08, Chris Lattner wrote: > > o Optimization options > > > > I agree with the idea of using -O<number> for increasing levels of > > optimization, with -O0 meaning no optimization. It's a pretty intuitive > > scheme, and many Makefiles that use GCC use the -O option. > > The problem is that -O0 does *not* mean no optimization.

Hello Everyone, I need to have your thoughts on this. Consider the following test case -- ------------------------------------------- 1 int main(int Argc, char **Argv) { 2 int Local = 6; 3 printf("%d\n",Local); 4 5 { 6 printf("%d\n",Local); 7 int Local = 7; 8 printf("%d\n",Local); 9 }

On Wed, 4 Aug 2004, John Criswell wrote: > I thought I would chime in with some ideas and opinions: > > o Configuration Files > > If it isn't too much trouble, I think we should go with XML for the > following reasons: > > 1) We wouldn't need to implement a parsing library. There are several > XML parsing libraries available, and I'm guessing that

Hello, I am the guy behind the ext2/ext3 patches for Extended Attributes and ACLs, and I've recently been asked about ACL support in rsync by Eric. Upon investigating I found that you have an ACL patch against rsync-2.5.5 [1]. I also found some other postings to rsync@lists.samba.org concerning rsync and ACLs [3]. Are there any plans for finalizing an integrating that rsync ACL patch? I

...mask = 0770 [Transport] comment = Transport connections to the outside world path = /teleflage/transport writeable = Yes [stuff] comment = Misc Stuff path = /teleflage/stuff valid users = rtuggle, ntuggle, alarson, dloomis writeable = Yes [Onone CDRom] path = /teleflage/onlinecdrom writeable = no *************************** Output from smbstatus with ip's removed Samba version 2.2.0 Service uid gid pid machine ---------------------------------------------- kbrown kbrown users 9184 rgu...