Displaying 11 results from an estimated 11 matches for "userelativeid".
Did you mean:
userelativeids
2012 Sep 26
0
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
...s.empty())
> + return Error("Insufficient function protos");
Why this new error? Or would it have occurred anyway, later? Maybe it
should be an assertion, if it should be impossible. I think "prototypes"
would be better than "protos".
> + FuncUseRelativeIDs[FunctionsWithBodies.back()] =
> + (SubBlockID == bitc::FUNCTION_BLOCK_REL_ID);
If the use of relative ids was on a per module basis then this wouldn't be
needed.
> +
> if (RememberAndSkipFunctionBody())
> return true;
> // For streaming...
2012 Sep 26
9
[LLVMdev] [PATCH / PROPOSAL] bitcode encoding that is ~15% smaller for large bitcode files...
Hi all,
I've been looking into how to make llvm bitcode files smaller. There is
one simple change that appears to shrink linked bitcode files by about 15%.
See this spreadsheet for some rough data:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjRrJHQc4_bddEtJdjdIek5fMDdIdFFIZldZXzdWa0E
The change is in how operand ids are encoded in bitcode files. Rather than
use an "absolute
2012 Nov 12
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
...local variable in BitcodeWriter.cpp:1814*
I would suspect then you'll also need to provide additional logic for reading:
switch (module_version) {
default: return Error("Unknown bitstream version!");
case 2:
EncodesFastMathIR = true;
case 1:
UseRelativeIDs = true;
break;
case 0:
UseRelativeIDs = false;
break;
}
Joe
(*TODO: Put this somewhere else).
On Nov 9, 2012, at 5:34 PM, Michael Ilseman <milseman at apple.com<mailto:milseman at apple.com>> wrote:
Revision 2
Revision 2 changes:
* Add in sep...
2012 Nov 13
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
...> I would suspect then you'll also need to provide additional logic for reading:
>
> switch (module_version) {
> default: return Error("Unknown bitstream version!");
> case 2:
> EncodesFastMathIR = true;
> case 1:
> UseRelativeIDs = true;
> break;
> case 0:
> UseRelativeIDs = false;
> break;
>
> }
Couldn't this be handled by adding an extra operand to the binary operators?
-Chris
>
> Joe
>
> (*TODO: Put this somewhere else).
>
> On N...
2012 Nov 15
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
...ide additional logic for reading:
>>>
>>> switch (module_version) {
>>> default: return Error("Unknown bitstream version!");
>>> case 2:
>>> EncodesFastMathIR = true;
>>> case 1:
>>> UseRelativeIDs = true;
>>> break;
>>> case 0:
>>> UseRelativeIDs = false;
>>> break;
>>>
>>> }
>>
>> Couldn't this be handled by adding an extra operand to the binary operators?
>>
>>...
2012 Nov 14
6
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
...you'll also need to provide additional logic for reading:
>>
>> switch (module_version) {
>> default: return Error("Unknown bitstream version!");
>> case 2:
>> EncodesFastMathIR = true;
>> case 1:
>> UseRelativeIDs = true;
>> break;
>> case 0:
>> UseRelativeIDs = false;
>> break;
>>
>> }
>
> Couldn't this be handled by adding an extra operand to the binary operators?
>
> -Chris
>
>>
>> Joe
>...
2017 Apr 04
3
RFC: Adding a string table to the bitcode format
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On 2017-Apr-04, at 12:12, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 8:13 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Apr 3, 2017, at 7:08 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> wrote:
>>
2012 Nov 15
2
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
...gt; I would suspect then you'll also need to provide additional logic for
> reading:
>
> switch (module_version) {
> default: return Error("Unknown bitstream version!");
> case 2:
> EncodesFastMathIR = true;
> case 1:
> UseRelativeIDs = true;
> break;
> case 0:
> UseRelativeIDs = false;
> break;
>
> }
>
>
> Couldn't this be handled by adding an extra operand to the binary operators?
>
> -Chris
>
>
> Joe
>
> (*TODO: Put this somewhere else)...
2014 Dec 19
2
[LLVMdev] [Patches][RFC] What to do about bitcode streaming.
...1205 => Hex
> };
>
> +BitcodeReader::BitcodeReader(MemoryBuffer * Buffer, LLVMContext & C)
clang-format?
> + : Context(C), TheModule(nullptr), Buffer(Buffer),
> + SeenValueSymbolTable(false), ValueList(C), MDValueList(C),
> + SeenFirstFunctionBody(false), UseRelativeIDs(false),
> + WillMaterializeAllForwardRefs(false) {
> diff --git a/tools/llvm-dis/llvm-dis.cpp b/tools/llvm-dis/llvm-dis.cpp
> index 072f636..3e21164 100644
> --- a/tools/llvm-dis/llvm-dis.cpp
> +++ b/tools/llvm-dis/llvm-dis.cpp
> @@ -135,12 +205,13 @@ int main(int argc, char...
2012 Nov 09
0
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
Revision 2
Revision 2 changes:
* Add in separate Reciprocal flag
* Clarified wording of flags, specified undefined values, not behavior
* Removed some confusing language
* Mentioned optimizations/analyses adding in flags due to inferred knowledge
Revision 1 changes:
* Removed Fusion flag from all sections
* Clarified and changed descriptions of remaining flags:
* Make 'N' and
2012 Nov 02
3
[LLVMdev] [RFC] Extend LLVM IR to express "fast-math" at a per-instruction level
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Dan Gohman <dan433584 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Krzysztof Parzyszek
> <kparzysz at codeaurora.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/2/2012 11:53 AM, Michael Ilseman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think Dan was making two points with his example. Dan, correct me if I
>>>