search for: rauwed

Hello, Does anyone know if it is possible to RAUW the Metadata? I took a look at the source for it and IIUC, it is not possible. What should I do to implement the RAUW for DINode (more precisely DILocation)? Thank you for your help, Son Tuan Vu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Yes, it's still respected in this case, as the only instructions that will be deleted have been RAUW with undef. Originally, all instructions where RAUW but only non-EHPad were deleted (that means EHPad were RAUW but not deleted). Then it was later patched by not RAUW token instructions and now not deleting EHPad nor token instructions. My assumption is that the instructions we wanted to

> On Oct 17, 2014, at 3:54 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > this seems like the classic situation where the someone comes to you asking for X, but what they really want is a solution to underlying problem Y, for which the best solution, once you actually analyze Y, is Z. On the contrary, I came into this expecting to work with Eric on parallelizing the backend,

On Tuesday 02 March 2010 18:24:42 David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 17:58:57 David Greene wrote: > > > way to confirm this right now. Does it fix the bug you're seeing? > > > > Yep, it fixed it. > > Hmm...curiously, not all. More tomorrow. Ah, missed a spot in 2.5, which has a few more RAUW implementations. I think we're good. Thanks!

On Mar 3, 2010, at 7:25 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Tuesday 02 March 2010 18:24:42 David Greene wrote: >> On Tuesday 02 March 2010 17:58:57 David Greene wrote: >>>> way to confirm this right now. Does it fix the bug you're seeing? >>> >>> Yep, it fixed it. >> >> Hmm...curiously, not all. More tomorrow. > > Ah, missed a spot in 2.5,

I did not observe any assertion. In addition, the documentation ( https://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#undefined-values) says: The string ‘undef’ can be used anywhere a constant is expected, and indicates that the user of the value may receive an unspecified bit-pattern. Undefined values may be of any type (other than ‘label’ or ‘ void’) and be used anywhere a constant is permitted. Either way,

Hello everyone, If I understand correctly after the Metadata/Value split the Metadata support of RAUW is limited by ValueAsMetadata and MDNodeFwdDecl (i.e. until cycled in MDNode are not resovled). And my question is. Is where any way to replace an MDNode which is referenced by other MDNodes w\o iterating over all MDNodes in LLMVContext to find and replace those references? Unfortunately I

Hello David, I am having an issue with some custom intrinsics that return a token value: InstCombine deletes the users of the token but not the instruction that creates the token itself. The IR is still valid but it's wasted. The source of the issue is coming from an old patch of yours: commit 7204cff0a121ebc770cf81f7f94679ae7324daae Author: David Majnemer <david.majnemer at

> > On 2014 Oct 18, at 10:27, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > Derp. My bad. It would be nice in the future if you communicated this better in the OP. In the OP it sounds like you are doing this solely for memory, since there is no mention of CPU time or the excessive callback-based RAUW traffic. It's clear that you found the OP misleading. I focused this

Hi Dan, I am trying to understand the change you made in http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?view=revision&revision=57465 In order to understand the details, I tried to revert the change but the test case still passes which is not very surprising after 6 years :(. I am seeing a related new bug that causes a load that was stashed on the NodeStack and in RecordedNodes during iSel to get

TL;DR: If you use metadata (especially if it's out-of-tree), check the numbered list of lost functionality below to see whether I'm trying to break your compiler permanently. In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from `MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and drop general support for

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:59 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:55 PM, heisenbug wrote: > > What about "inventing" pseudo-constants (which point to the right > > thing) and build the piece of IR with them. When done, grab mutex and > > RAUW it in. Alternatively, submit to a privileged thread that performs > > the RAUW. > > The trick is to

Hi Nick. Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without answer. It is about merging functions itself (not comparing). First question is: Why sometimes we use RAUW and sometimes replaceDirectCallers. Would you help me

Hi Eli: >> semantics of the fork intrinsic... thinking about it a bit more, I think >> you're going to run into problems with trying to keep around a return block >> through optimizations: How about this? Make all control flow explicit (duh). declare i8 coro.suspend([...]) returns: 0 - resume 1 - cleanup anything else - suspend Now we can get

> On 2014-Nov-10, at 08:30, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 9, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> In response to my recent commits (e.g., [1]) that changed API from >> `MDNode` to `Value`, Eric had a really interesting idea [2] -- split >> metadata entirely from the `Value` hierarchy, and

> On 2014-Oct-27, at 00:58, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > I haven't been able to follow all of the thread that got us here but your patch below has distilled the result enough for me to at least ask questions. Always takes a patch to draw people in :). > I'm sorry of some of the justification is buried in the thread and I'm just making you

On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Alex Rosenberg <alexr at leftfield.org> wrote: > As all of these transforms are 1-to-1, can we still support the older metadata and convert it on the fly? > I'd prefer not to keep all of that code around to interpret both versions without a very good reason. -eric > Alex > >> On Oct 13, 2014, at 3:02 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith

On 27 October 2013 11:30, Stepan Dyatkovskiy <stpworld at narod.ru> wrote: > Hi Nick. > > Can you help me sort some things out in MergeFucntions pass. While I was > working on MergeFunctions pass I got several questions. I hardly tried to > find all the answers by myself, but there are still two questions without > answer. > > It is about merging functions itself

> On May 4, 2017, at 4:53 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Alrighty, a little fuzzy on how best to implement this - Adrian, you've probably got the most context here as to how to wrangle this. > > My first attempt was in IRMover.cpp, IRLinker::linkFunctionBody - after metadata is copied over, create a new subprogram derived from Dst.getSubprogram,

On 3 Nov., 10:06, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > On Nov 2, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Jonathan Brandmeyer wrote: > > > I am interested in making my LLVM front-end multi-threaded in a way > > similar to the GCC compiler server proposal and was wondering about   > > the > > extent that the LLVM passes support it. > > Do you have a link for this?