search for: viridia

Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't know DIFactory existed until you mentioned it just now. > > And if folks are adding brand new classes to LLVM, can we not follow the > naming conventions in the developer guidelines? > > On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:14 AM, Renato Golin <reng...

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > So this was working fine for me until a few days ago when I checked out the > most recent LLVM - the one with the new type system. Now I am getting the > same error that I was getting previously. > Is it possible that your fix got unfixed when they merged in th...

Here's my latest version of Hashing.h, which I propose to add to llvm/ADT. Comments welcome and encouraged. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > By the way, the reason I'm bringing this up is that a number of folks are > currently working on optimizing the use of hash tables within LLVM's code > base, and unless we can come up with a common hashing facility, there will > be an increasing prolif...

On 18 February 2011 21:34, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I meant DIBuilder. DIBuilder is the new DIFactory. I've been playing with it this week and it's much easier and straightforward to use. I'm still having problems to create arrays, though. As far as I remember (from the 2010 meeting), the idea was to...

On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082, and >> several things broke, most of which were easily fixed. However, I'm now >> getting a "pure virtual method called" exception (__cxa_pure_virtual) which >&gt...

...101905 tart::Module::~Module() + 1609 14 tartc 0x00000001000fd67b __tcf_3 + 27 15 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff830e6374 __cxa_finalize + 203 16 libSystem.B.dylib 0x00007fff830e628c exit + 18 17 tartc 0x000000010000173b start + 59 / On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com>wrote: > >> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 9:20 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I recently updated my version of LLVM from revision 140108 to 142082,...

Talin wrote: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com > <mailto:viridia at gmail.com>> wrote: > > I notice that there's a lot of inconsistency in the various LLVM > classes with respect to convenience methods. Here's some examples: > > For creating GEPS, IRBuilder has: > > Create...

...iler plate 3) they compose recursively less cleanly Even given your interface, there is no actual requirement for an incremental hash. Simply store intermediate state in the object, and provide a 'finalize' step that produces the final hash code. On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 4:59 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's my latest version of Hashing.h, which I propose to add to llvm/ADT. > Comments welcome and encouraged. > > > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> By the way, the reason I'm bringing this up...

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 4:49 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Talin...

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 6:10 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > In my case, I've been attempting to build a target-neutral frontend. In my > tool chain, the target is specified at link time, not at compile time. Among > other things, that means that the same IR file can be used for multiple > targets. That's the di...

Hi Talin, This looks interesting..! Can you email me your tool? Cheers, Raghu. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renato Golin" <rengolin at systemcall.org> To: "Talin" <viridia at gmail.com> Cc: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2011 1:31:10 AM Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Introducing LLBrowse: A graphical browser for LLVM modules Nice! I'm interested... would also be nice to cross this with llvm diff...

On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I recently started getting this error when I try to debug my LLVM-compiled >> program in GDB: >> >> Dwarf Error: Cannot find DIE at 0x16769 referenced from DIE at 0x1713c >> [in module >> /home/talin/Projects/tart/build-eclipse...

...ke a regular function call. The alloca is moved in > the first block most probably because the inliner anticipates another > optimization pass (the mem2reg). > OK, well, is there anything that can be done? > > Cheers, > Nicolas > > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 8:28 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm still putting the final touches on my stack crawler, and I've run into >> a problem having to do with function inlining and local stack roots. >> >> As you know, all local roots must be initialized before you can make any >>...

On Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 4:05 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 5:58 PM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com>wrote: > >> >> On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:50 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I recently started getting this error when I try to debug my &...

On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 6:32 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> So this was working fine for me until a few days ago when I checked out the >> most recent LLVM - the one with the new type system. Now I am getting the >> same error that I was getting previously. >> Is it possible that your fix got unfixed when t...

Sure. I think we can change the GC lowering pass to recognize all llvm.gcroot (not only the ones in the first block), and move them to the first block so that they are initialized by the pass later on. On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 12:59 PM, nicolas geoffray < > nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Talin, >> >> You are not doing something wrong, it is just that the LLVM optimizers >> consider llvm.gcroot like a regular function c...

On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:21 AM, Devang Patel <devang.patel at gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> So, one feature of the late, lamented DebugInfoBuilder that I am missing >> quite badly, and which is not available in the current DIFactory, is the >> ability to specify structure offsets abstractly. The DebugFactory >> requires that you pass in s...

When developing an LLVM-based frontend, is there a way to automatically verify that the DWARF metadata being emitted is correct? Specifically, I'd like to be able to write some sort of unit test that will fail if the DWARF is invalid. I don't just want to test whether the LLVM metadata statements are well-formed - if I make a change that will cause lldb or gdb to barf, I would like to have

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > I notice that there's a lot of inconsistency in the various LLVM classes > with respect to convenience methods. Here's some examples: > > For creating GEPS, IRBuilder has: > > CreateGEP (2 overloads) > CreateInBoundsGEP (2 overloads) >...

...it tests and the large tests are mutually exclusive. Also, will the unit tests be one executable or many? They will probably compile/run faster if there is a smaller number of executables. On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Misha Brukman <brukman at gmail.com> wrote: > 2008/12/29 Talin <viridia at gmail.com> > >> I'm working on an update to the patch. The only thing holding me up is >> trying to come to a final decision as to where all the various pieces should >> live. Specifically, the Google Test library, and the actual unit tests >> themselves. > &...