similar to: Error while accessing reviews.llvm.org

Hello Devs, I am getting following error while connecting to review server. " A Troublesome Encounter! Woe! This request had its journey cut short by unexpected circumstances (Can Not Connect to MySQL)" Is anyone else facing this? Thanks [image: Inline image 1] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >> >> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >> >> stuff? >> >> I've tried >> (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) >> and >> ((i16, i16)

Hi, My target has a special configuration register that many instructions read implicitly, configuring for example if an add instruction should saturate at over/underflow or not. Now, I have a problem where the MachineCSE removes a setting of this configuration register in a basic block, because MachineCSE::isPhysDefTriviallyDead can't find any uses of it in the basic block where

On 03/30/2016 11:51 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >>> >>>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:43, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 03/30/2016 11:38 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: >> >>> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com >>> <mailto:mikael.holmen at ericsson.com>> wrote: >>> >>> i16 (divm16_pseudo …) >>>

On 07/15/2019 04:01 AM, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi, > > Same thing for me, as I described here: > > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20190708/279184.html > > I think the problem is that the patch assumes that if sys/inotify.h > exists, then IN_EXCL_UNLINK is defined in it. > > But I think that there are old versions of inotify.h

Looks like I can't access git, documentation, bugs... I'm not sure if this email will actually go through. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20171009/e63b709a/attachment.html>

Hi, A few days ago I stumbled upon a problem where SpeculativeExecution changed the order of a load and a store to the same address. I wrote https://bugs.llvm.org//show_bug.cgi?id=32964 about it but no response there so far. In the input we have store i8 0, i8* @i %.pre = load i8, i8* @i and then in the output the load is moved so it's before the store which clearly makes it

Hi, I'm trying to run the benchmark suite: http://llvm.org/docs/TestingGuide.html#test-suite-quickstart I'm doing it the lnt way, as described at: http://llvm.org/docs/lnt/quickstart.html I don't know what to expect but the results seems to be quite noisy and unstable. E.g I've done two runs on two different commits that only differ by a space in CODE_OWNERS.txt on my 12

Hi, On 03/30/2016 11:15 AM, Matt Arsenault wrote: > >> On Mar 30, 2016, at 09:33, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my out-of-tree target I have an intrinsic >> >> def int_phx_divm_u16 : Intrinsic<[llvm_any_ty], >> [llvm_i16_ty, llvm_i16_ty], >>

Hi, In llvm/test/Transforms/InstCombine/cast.ll there is a test like this: target datalayout = "E-p:64:64:64-p1:32:32:32-p2:64:64:64-p3:64:64:64- a0:0:8-f32:32:32-f64:64:64-i1:8:8-i8:8:8-i16:16:16-i32:32:32-i64:32:64- v64:64:64-v128:128:128-n8:16:32:64" [...] define <3 x i32> @test60(<4 x i32> %call4) { ; CHECK-LABEL: @test60( ; CHECK-NEXT: [[P10:%.*]] = shufflevector

Hi, On 08/07/2015 10:30 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote: [...] > Depends. What is the exact declaration of format_long? > > > In the input .ll file it is: > > ; Function Attrs: minsize optsize > define internal i16 @format_long(i16* %res.8.par, i16 %base.9.par, > i32 %x.10.par) #3 { > > which is later changed somewhere in opt to: > > ;

Hi Quentin and llvm-dev, I've got a regalloc-related question that you might have an opinion or answer about. In our out-of-tree target we've been doing some bundling before register allocation for quite some time now, and last night a new problem popped up. What the fix should be depends on if this bundle is legal or not: BUNDLE %vreg39<imp-def,dead> *

Many thanks for the pointer! I missed that bug report since the title was about GVN. If there's interest in supporting this feature I can help since we've formalized most of BasicAA. I can easily verify if proposed changes are correct. (I'll release the code soon). Nuno Quoting Björn Pettersson A <bjorn.a.pettersson at ericsson.com>: > Hi Nuno. > I can't

On 08/07/2015 01:53 PM, Caldarale, Charles R wrote: >> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] >> On Behalf Of Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev >> Subject: [llvm-dev] load instruction erroneously removed by GVN > >> But between the load and the alloca there is also >> call fastcc void @format_long(i16* %_tmp30, i16 10, i32 10), !dbg !22 >>

Hi, Is there any easy way to run the verifier between each pass in opt if I do e.g. opt -O3 foo.ll -o foo.opt.ll ? If I add -verify after -O3 I get one invocation of the verifier first in the FunctionPass manager and then get two (!) runs of the verifier after all other passes are run. Then I saw the flag -verify-each which sounds promising, the help text says - Verify after each

> On Mar 30, 2016, at 11:35, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > > i16 (divm16_pseudo …) > > stuff? > > I've tried > (i16, i16 (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and > ((i16, i16) (divm16_pseudo i16:$src1, i16:$src2) > and a few other variants without managing to get it through. > > Thanks again, > Mikael Are you

Hi, On 01/22/2016 05:02 PM, Tom Stellard wrote: > On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 01:58:49PM +0100, Mikael Holmén via llvm-dev wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm a litle bit puzzled by the TargetLowering::LowerOperation function, >> and what different callers of this function assumes about the returned >> value. >> > SelectionDAGLegalize::LegalizeOp() is your best

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 1:43 AM, Mikael Holmén <mikael.holmen at ericsson.com> wrote: > I also think it's weird that the replaceDbgDeclareForAlloca/rep > laceDbgDeclare/FindAllocaDbgDeclare methods return as soon as they've > handled one found dbg.declare, so if there are several, one is moved next > to the alloca, but the other ones are left somewhere. So maybe a fault

Hi, I'm having problems with the LoopIdiomRegognizer crashing on me with An asserting value handle still pointed to this value! UNREACHABLE executed at ../lib/IR/Value.cpp:695! If I remove AU.addPreserved<LoopInfoWrapperPass>(); or AU.addPreserved<AAResultsWrapperPass>(); everything goes well. The C-code triggering this is void foo(int a[10][10]) { int i, j,