similar to: can I use template to assemble a html page in an controller and redirect to another controller?

Hi Chris, Is there a compelling reason why llvm-gcc does not always produce natural loops. Is it a code size issue, or are there performance implications as well? I am seeing a simple 'while' loop compiled to an unnatural loop, without any gotos, breaks, or continues. What is the reason for this? Marc On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:

Hi Marc, > Is there a compelling reason why llvm-gcc does not always produce natural > loops. Is it a code size issue, or are there performance implications as > well? I am seeing a simple 'while' loop compiled to an unnatural loop, > without any gotos, breaks, or continues. What is the reason for this? is it already an unnatural loop when it comes out of the gcc parts of

I am reviving this thread because I am seeing the same thing (unnatural loops produced by llvm-gcc), but it is not limited to -O0 -- I am seeing it for -O2 and -O3 as well. Some of my research work is relying on LoopInfo to provide loop information for all loops, but it is missing these loops. Is there any work in the pipeline that aims to fix this? Many thanks, Marc On Sat, Jun 21, 2008 at

On Feb 11, 2009, at 1:13 PM, Marc de Kruijf wrote: > I am reviving this thread because I am seeing the same thing > (unnatural loops produced by llvm-gcc), but it is not limited to -O0 > -- I am seeing it for -O2 and -O3 as well. > Some of my research work is relying on LoopInfo to provide loop > information for all loops, but it is missing these loops. Is there > any

Hi, I tested unlikely operations about the xm reboot/shutdown command. As a result, I found the following problems. Problem 1: Can reboot/shutdown Domain-0 by mistake. # xm list Name ID Mem(MiB) VCPUs State Time(s) Domain-0 0 1024 2 r----- 31.0 # xm reboot 0 Error: Can''t specify Domain-0 # xm reboot 00 #

On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com> wrote: >>> In C, integer to point conversions are implementation defined and >>> depends on what the addressing structure of the execution environment >>> is. Given the current definition of ptrtoint and intoptr, I feel that >>> the addressing structure feels like a flat memory model

We're migrating to LLVM 3.1 and trying to use the upstream FMA patterns. Why is VFMADDSD4 defined with vector types? Is this simply because the gcc intrinsic uses vector types? It's quite unnatural if you have a compiler that generates FMAs as opposed to requiring user intrinsics. -Dave

Hey everyone, I have a philosophical question here. Say I have a website that uses two models for accounts: Person and Company. Normally I would just have /accounts/new for user signup. However, the RESTful way to do it is to have /people and /companies. Unfortunately, this doesn''t account for a situation where you''d have a one-page signup form. I wouldn''t want

Hi all, What is the right portable way to save graphics in batch mode? Remarks: 1. Problem is STFWed and RTFMed. In particular a short note about png() is found in R-FAQ. In fact, there were stated that png() is not reliable under Linux in batch mode. 2. savePlot under windows is quite convenient, but not supplied under Linux. 3. pdf() + postscript() < savePlot()

On Jun 11, 2008, at 6:27 AM, Florian Brandner wrote: > On Thursday 08 May 2008 18:33:48 Adrian Prantl wrote: >> we noticed that llvmgcc4.2-2.2 sometimes generates non-natural loops >> when compiling to bytecode without any optimizations. Apparently what >> happens is that the loop header is duplicated, which results in two >> entry points for the loop. > > this is

On Sep 13, 2012, at 2:23 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com> wrote: >>>> In C, integer to point conversions are implementation defined and >>>> depends on what the addressing structure of the execution environment >>>> is. Given the current definition of ptrtoint

Hello LLVM, I'm trying to make symbolizing work in llvm-objdump. This comment in ObjectFile.h gives me some heartburn: https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/include/llvm/Object/ObjectFile.h#L196 // The main goal of // this is to allow SymbolRef::SymbolPimpl to point directly to the symbol // entry in the memory mapped object file. SymbolPimpl cannot contain any // virtual

Hello, Reid. > Fortunately, with SVN, making such a change isn't hard and its tracked > in the commits. Anyone object or have other ideas in this realm? I'm also confused. At one hand, proposed layout (with BTT in the top) seems to be "unnatural", when we will create new tags/branches. In theory, each module can have its own version, thus if the want to "tag"

I'm a new LLVM developer contributing patches for the AVR platform and I'm trying to understand which parts of the code base are malfunctioning in my case. This LLVM IR... define hidden i32 @setServoAngle3(i32) local_unnamed_addr { entry: %1 = call i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32 %0, i32 119) ret i32 %1 } declare i32 @myExternalFunction1(i32, i32) Is being lowered to this assembly

Because the intrinsics uses vector types (same as gcc). - Jan ----- Original Message ----- > From: "dag at cray.com" <dag at cray.com> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:26 PM > Subject: [LLVMdev] X86 FMA4 > > We're migrating to LLVM 3.1 and trying to use the upstream FMA patterns. > > Why is VFMADDSD4

> -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Lattner [mailto:clattner at apple.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:24 PM > To: Villmow, Micah > Cc: Mon Ping Wang; llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal: New IR instruction for casting between > address spaces > > On Sep 13, 2012, at 12:00 PM, Mon Ping Wang <monping at apple.com>

I have to agree with Paul that I think it is rather useful to have a naming convention that distinguishes class members from locals, etc. I'm not sure what that would look like, whether an m prefix for data members would be something others would entertain, but something that makes it clear would probably be useful. To use Paul's example, I think that mTheStuff vs. TheStuff makes it super

On Thursday 08 May 2008 18:33:48 Adrian Prantl wrote: > we noticed that llvmgcc4.2-2.2 sometimes generates non-natural loops > when compiling to bytecode without any optimizations. Apparently what > happens is that the loop header is duplicated, which results in two > entry points for the loop. this is actually a problem with the tailduplication pass of llvm. it does not consider

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 11:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > FWIW, I'm very much in favor of having a firm and clear answer to these > questions. > > I also agree that it is an absolute requirement that LLVM have *some* > mechanism for supporting both languages with defined behavior for infinite > loops and a language requirement that all loops

Hey Jan and Dave, It's not obvious, but there is a significant scalar performance issue following the GCC intrinsics. Let's look at the VFMADDSD pattern. We're operating on scalars with undefineds as the remaining vector elements of the operands. This sounds okay, but when one looks closer... vmovsd fp4_+1088(%rip), %xmm3 # fpppp.f:647 vmovaps %xmm3, 18560(%rsp)