search for: opinit

...for Record to have to have a RecordKeeper& in it. I haven't looked at the code in a long time, is it feasible to detangle that out of record, or is it not worth it? I'll see if I can come up with another approach. This internal reference was motivated by the Record::setName(...) and UnOpInit::Fold(...) implementations accessing the previous global RecordKeeper instance. We could add a RecordKeeper& argument to setName and OpInit::Fold(...). However as I'm looking at the code, while adding this argument to Fold for TGParser use is not an issue as it has a RecordKeeper instance,...

On Dec 12, 2010, at 10:54 AM, Garrison Venn wrote: > > Hey Chris, > > The following patch removes all global references to a RecordKeeper instance for the tblgen > utility. This effort was motivated by the FIXME remark, in TableGen.cpp. Although a few files > were touched, the main change was to Record.h. > > The patch takes the simple approach of adding a RecordKeeper

...ave to have a RecordKeeper& in it. I haven't looked at the code in a long time, is it feasible to detangle that out of record, or is it not worth it? > > I'll see if I can come up with another approach. This internal reference was motivated by the > Record::setName(...) and UnOpInit::Fold(...) implementations accessing the previous > global RecordKeeper instance. We could add a RecordKeeper& argument to setName > and OpInit::Fold(...). However as I'm looking at the code, while adding this argument to Fold > for TGParser use is not an issue as it has a RecordK...

Hey Chris, The following patch removes all global references to a RecordKeeper instance for the tblgen utility. This effort was motivated by the FIXME remark, in TableGen.cpp. Although a few files were touched, the main change was to Record.h. The patch takes the simple approach of adding a RecordKeeper reference to TGParser, and any needed emitter helper classes. In addition, since some of

...LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o recog.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 recog.c /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o reg-stack.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 reg-stack.c /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o insn-opinit.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 insn-opinit.c /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o insn-recog.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 insn-recog.c /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o insn-extract.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN...

...ehaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >>> >>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >>> and make the solution based on team/bond. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >>>>...

...ehaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >>> >>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >>> and make the solution based on team/bond. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >>>>...

...made a mistake on what >>behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. > > Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition > it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it > and make the solution based on team/bond. > > >> >>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >>the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding based on MAC...

...made a mistake on what >>behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. > > Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition > it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it > and make the solution based on team/bond. > > >> >>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >>the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding based on MAC...

On Tue, 4 May 2004, Chris Lattner wrote: > I suspect that a large reason that LLVM does worst than a native C > compiler with the CBE+GCC is that LLVM generates very low-level C code, > and I'm not convinced that GCC is doing a very good job (ie, without > syntactic loops). Yup, this is EXACTLY what is going on. I took this very simple C function: int Array[1000]; void test(int

...al->getValue(); assert(TheInit != this && "Infinite loop detected!"); if (Init *I = TheInit->getFieldInit(R, RV, FieldName)) // *** return I; else return 0; } return 0; } The line marked with *** doesn't evaluate TheInit as a TernOpInit correctly. It goes to the Init base class of getFieldInit and returns 0. Do we need to add a getFieldInit method on TernOpInit to evaluate the !if() and return the requested field of the result ("Val" in this case) ? On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 9:35 AM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at...

...m-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o > recog.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 recog.c > /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o > reg-stack.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 reg-stack.c > /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o > insn-opinit.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 insn-opinit.c > /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o > insn-recog.o -DHOST_WORDS_BIG_ENDIAN -O3 insn-recog.c > /Users/patrick/Desktop/LLVM/cfrontend/ppc/llvm-gcc/bin/gcc -c -o > insn-extract.o -DHOST_WORD...

...ides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >>>> >>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >>>> and make the solution based on team/bond. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've ta...

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess that the ship has sailed and we are > stuck with this ugly thing forever... > > Could you at least make some common code that is shared in between > netvsc and virtio_net so this is handled in exacly the same way in both? IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver which made a mistake on what

On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 21:14:10 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote: > Yeah, I can see it now :( I guess that the ship has sailed and we are > stuck with this ugly thing forever... > > Could you at least make some common code that is shared in between > netvsc and virtio_net so this is handled in exacly the same way in both? IMHO netvsc is a vendor specific driver which made a mistake on what

...pecific driver which made a mistake on what >behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it and make the solution based on team/bond. > >To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >the NetworkManager guys to get auto-bonding based on MACs handled in >user space....

...o align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same...

...o align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>>>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>>>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >>>>> >>>>> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >>>>> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >>>>> and make the solution based on team/bond. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same...

...ominance.bc dwarf2asm.bc dwarf2out.bc dwarfout.bc emit-rtl.bc except.bc explow.bc expmed.bc expr.bc final.bc flow.bc fold-const.bc function.bc gcse.bc genrtl.bc ggc-common.bc global.bc graph.bc haifa-sched.bc hash.bc hashtable.bc hooks.bc ifcvt.bc insn-attrtab.bc insn-emit.bc insn-extract.bc insn-opinit.bc insn-output.bc insn-peep.bc insn-recog.bc integrate.bc intl.bc jump.bc langhooks.bc lcm .bc lists.bc local-alloc.bc loop.bc obstack.bc optabs.bc params.bc predict.bc print-rtl.bc print-tree.bc profile.bc real.bc recog.bc reg-stack.bc regclass.bc regmove.bc regrename.bc reload.bc reload1.bc reor...

...at >>>behaviour it provides (or tried to align itself with Windows SR-IOV). >>>Let's not make a far, far more commonly deployed and important driver >>>(virtio) bug-compatible with netvsc. >> >> Yeah. netvsc solution is a dangerous precedent here and in my opinition >> it was a huge mistake to merge it. I personally would vote to unmerge it >> and make the solution based on team/bond. >> >> >>> >>>To Jiri's initial comments, I feel the same way, in fact I've talked to >>>the NetworkManager guys to g...