search for: simpifications

On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 02:53 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: > If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any bugs you find. > Tried it, and it seems to break quite a big chunk of our tests on SPU :) Before r103488 ("Mostly rewrite RegAllocFast") there was no problem. But with r103488, I get a:

I just changed the default register allocator for -O0 builds to the fast allocator. This means that the local register allocator is not used anymore, and since it does more or less the same as the fast allocator, there is no reason to keep it around. I am going to delete it in a week or two. If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any

...hoping Saleem, Eric or Jon (copied) knows a bit of history > as to why this is so (perhaps because the two projects evolved > independently ?). > They didnt really evolve independently, the version in LLVM was imported from libc++. However, we simplified it to make it more portable. The simpifications naturally led to the ability to remove the arena allocation routines. The copy in libc++ needs to retain a certain amount of flexibility due to the exporting of the interface into the user's address space (via the __cxa_demangle interface). However, making adjustments that improve performance...

On Jun 4, 2010, at 1:57 AM, <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> <Kalle.Raiskila at nokia.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 02:53 +0200, Jakob Stoklund Olesen wrote: >> If you are using the local register allocator, please try switching to the fast allocator and report any bugs you find. >> > Tried it, and it seems to break quite a big chunk of our tests on SPU :)

Dear R help; I'll preface this by saying that the example I've provided below is pretty long, turgid, and otherwise a deep dive into a series of functions I wrote for a simulation study. It is, however, reproducible and self-contained. I'm trying to do my first simulation study that's quite big, and so I'll say that the output of this simulation as I'd like it to be is

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> > wrote: > > > > well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you > mean libc++'s demangler? > > Thanks for explaining, this is the first time