search for: r211920

...-goal > 3) describe what steps (& how this patch relates) are planned to get to (2) > > My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: Usually > bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same time, and > designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, which added an > explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to have been an > oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an accurate > representation/statement?) > More or less: it was not an oversight. The summaries are not really part of the...

...this patch relates) are planned to get to >>> (2) >>> >>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: >>> Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same >>> time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>> accurate representation/statement?) >>> >> >> More or less: it was not an ov...

...gt;>>>> to (2) >>>>> >>>>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: >>>>> Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same >>>>> time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>>>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>>>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>>>> accurate representation/statement?) >>>>> >>>>...

...gt;>>>> to (2) >>>>> >>>>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: >>>>> Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same >>>>> time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>>>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>>>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>>>> accurate representation/statement?) >>>>> >>>>...

Hey all, Below is the proposed format for the dump of the ThinLTO module summary in the llvm-dis utility: > ../build/bin/llvm-dis t.o && cat t.o.ll ; ModuleID = '2.o' source_filename = "2.ll" target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-f80:128-n8:16:32:64-S128" target triple = "x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu" @X = constant i32 42, section "foo", align

...gt;>>>>> >>>>>>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: >>>>>>> Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same >>>>>>> time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>>>>>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>>>>>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>>>>>> accurate representation/statement?) >>>&...

...gt;>>>>> >>>>>>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of this: >>>>>>> Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the same >>>>>>> time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>>>>>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>>>>>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>>>>>> accurate representation/statement?) >>>&...

...>>>>> My naive thoughts, not being intimately familiar with any of >>>>>>>>>>> this: Usually bitcode and textual IR support go in together or around the >>>>>>>>>>> same time, and designed that way from the start (take r211920 for examaple, >>>>>>>>>>> which added an explicit representation of COMDATs to the IR). This seems to >>>>>>>>>>> have been an oversight in the implementation of IR summaries (is that an >>>>>>>>>>> a...