Displaying 20 results from an estimated 300 matches similar to: "Asterisk CLI Prompt : Small hack"
2013 Dec 21
0
[LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
The flag -enable-aa-sched-mi should do what you want you want in the MachineScheduler pass.
If you want to do it in the selection DAG, there is a subtarget hook that might do it:
TargetSubtargetInfo::useAA()
LLVM won’t generate the schedule you want anyway for Intel core processors, but the alias analysis can be useful in general.
-Andy
On Dec 16, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Haishan <hndxvon at
2013 Dec 16
2
[LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
At 2013-12-15 22:43:34,"Caldarale, Charles R" <Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com> wrote:
>> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Haishan
>> Subject: [LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
>
>> My clang version is 3.3 and debug build.
>
>> //test.c
>> int a[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
2013 Dec 15
3
[LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
Hi,
I compile a case (test.c) to get object machine file (test.o) using clang as follows:
"clang -target arm -integrated-as -c test.c -o test.o"
My clang version is 3.3 and debug build.
//test.c
int a[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
int main() {
a[0] = a[5];
a[1] = a[4];
a[2] = a[5];
}
//end test.c
Then test.dump is generated by using the objdump tool.
//test.dump
ldr r1, [r0, #20]
2013 Jan 20
0
[LLVMdev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
As a results of my investigations, the thread is also added to cfe-dev.
The context : while porting my company code from the LLVM/Clang releases
3.1 to 3.2, I stumbled on a code size and performance regression. The
testcase is :
$ cat test.c
#include <stdint.h>
struct R {
uint16_t a;
uint16_t b;
};
volatile struct R * const addr = (volatile struct R *) 416;
void test(uint16_t a)
{
2013 Jan 18
2
[LLVMdev] Weird volatile propagation ?
Hi All,
Using clang+llvm at head, I noticed a weird behaviour with the following
reduced testcase :
$ cat test.c
#include <stdint.h>
struct R {
uint16_t a;
uint16_t b;
};
volatile struct R * const addr = (volatile struct R *) 416;
void test(uint16_t a)
{
struct R r = { a, 1 };
*addr = r;
}
$ clang -O2 -o - -emit-llvm -S -c test.c
; ModuleID = 'test.c'
target
2017 Mar 09
3
[RFC] bitfield access shrinking
On 03/09/2017 12:28 PM, Krzysztof Parzyszek via llvm-dev wrote:
> We could add intrinsics to extract/insert a bitfield, which would
> simplify a lot of that bitwise logic.
But then you need to teach a bunch of places about how to simply them,
fold using bitwise logic and other things that reduce demanded bits into
them, etc. This seems like a difficult tradeoff.
-Hal
>
>
2017 Mar 09
4
[RFC] bitfield access shrinking
In http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120827/063200.html,
consecutive bitfields are wrapped as a group and represented as a
large integer and emits loads stores and bit operations appropriate
for extracting bits from within it. It fixes the problem of violating
C++11 memory model that original widen load/store of bitfield was
facing. It also brings more coalescing
2013 Jan 21
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
On 01/20/2013 10:56 PM, Chandler Carruth wrote:
> I doubt you needed to add cfe-dev here. Sorry I hadn't seen this, this
> seems like an easy and simple deficiency in the IR intrinsic for
> memcpy. See below.
>
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Arnaud de Grandmaison
> <arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com
> <mailto:arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at
2013 Jan 20
2
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] codegen of volatile aggregate copies (was "Weird volatile propagation" on llvm-dev)
I doubt you needed to add cfe-dev here. Sorry I hadn't seen this, this
seems like an easy and simple deficiency in the IR intrinsic for memcpy.
See below.
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Arnaud de Grandmaison <
arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com> wrote:
> define void @test(i16 zeroext %a) nounwind uwtable {
> %r.sroa.0 = alloca i16, align 2
> %r.sroa.1 = alloca i16,
2013 Jan 29
0
[LLVMdev] Specify the volatile access behaviour of the memcpy, memmove and memset intrinsics
I can't think of a better way to do this, so I think it's ok.
I also submitted a complementary patch on llvm-commits clarifying volatile semantics.
-Andy
On Jan 28, 2013, at 8:54 AM, Arnaud A. de Grandmaison <arnaud.allarddegrandmaison at parrot.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> In the language reference manual, the access behavior of the memcpy,
> memmove and memset
2013 Jan 31
0
[LLVMdev] Specify the volatile access behaviour of the memcpy, memmove and memset intrinsics
Thanks Andy and Chandler,
After specifying the volatile access behaviour, the second step was to
autoupgrade the memmove/memcpy intrinsics, and implement
(is|set)Volatile in terms of (is|set)(Src|Dest)Volatile, with no
functional change.
0001-Specify-the-access-behaviour-of-the-memcpy-memmove-a.patch is the
one you already reviewed, unaltered.
2013 Feb 03
0
[LLVMdev] Specify the volatile access behaviour of the memcpy, memmove and memset intrinsics
Same patches as before, but 0002-memcpy has been updated to put the
(is|set)SrcVolatile methods to where they logically belong :
MemTransferInst. This makes (is|set)Volatile methods look a bit ugly to
keep compatibility with existing behaviour, but they will hopefully
disappear when all users have moved to the new interface --- in the next
series of patches.
I plan to give a try to phabricator
2017 Mar 09
4
[RFC] bitfield access shrinking
On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> On 03/09/2017 12:14 PM, Wei Mi via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>> In
>> http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20120827/063200.html,
>> consecutive bitfields are wrapped as a group and represented as a
>> large integer and emits loads stores and bit operations appropriate
2013 Jan 28
4
[LLVMdev] Specify the volatile access behaviour of the memcpy, memmove and memset intrinsics
Hi All,
In the language reference manual, the access behavior of the memcpy,
memmove and memset intrinsics is not well defined with respect to the
volatile flag. The LRM even states that "it is unwise to depend on it".
This forces optimization passes to be conservatively correct and prevent
optimizations.
A very simple example of this is :
$ cat test.c
#include <stdint.h>
2013 Dec 15
0
[LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu]
> On Behalf Of Haishan
> Subject: [LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
> My clang version is 3.3 and debug build.
> //test.c
> int a[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
> int main() {
> a[0] = a[5];
> a[1] = a[4];
> a[2] = a[5];
> }
> //end test.c
> Then test.dump is
2014 Nov 25
0
asterisk prompt
Hello,
I am trying to set up color prompt. In the documentation I have found this:
%Cn[;n] Change terminal foreground (and optional background) color to
specified. A full list of colors may be found in include/asterisk/term.h*
But nowhere could I find what format the color code should be. I have
tried all possible permutations, none of them works:
ASTERISK_PROMPT="%Cn[COLOR_BLUE]
2019 Oct 23
2
issues with Asterisk CLI
Hello,
I have Asterisk 16.2 on Debian.
In the Asterisk CLI, I would like to change 2 things:
1) change the keybindings for commandline editing
(what in bash is called "readline" editing of the command line)
The CLI is missing some very useful keybindings, and even worse, has
misconfigured others, For instance, "ctrl"+"w" should delete the last
word backward. But
2009 May 21
1
reg static build
Hi,
? Did anyone tried static build of asterisk 1.6 version?
Installation fails when tried with static build.
warning: Using 'initgroups' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the shared libraries from the glibc version used for linking
asterisk.o: In function `cli_prompt':
warning: Using 'getgrgid' in statically linked applications requires at runtime the
2011 Feb 22
0
[LLVMdev] still failed to build the llbrowse on Debian5-32b-llvm2.8
OK try it now - I checked in a few more fixes.
On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 8:29 AM, Chuck Zhao <czhao at eecg.toronto.edu> wrote:
> I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today,
> The following is a full build console output.
> I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake.
>
> Thank you
>
> Chuck
>
> sideshow.eecg>time
2011 Feb 22
2
[LLVMdev] still failed to build the llbrowse on Debian5-32b-llvm2.8
I still can't build LLBrowse on my Debian5-i386 machine today,
The following is a full build console output.
I am using LLVM-2.8 release build, with needed wxWidgets and CMake.
Thank you
Chuck
sideshow.eecg>time cmake ../llbrowse
-- The C compiler identification is GNU
-- The CXX compiler identification is GNU
-- Check for working C compiler: /steffan/a/a0/czhao/bin/bin32/gcc
-- Check