similar to: exit block

Yes, that’s right. Some LLVM terminology though: The blocks you mention, are called the “exiting blocks” of the loop, and the blocks outside the loop (that are the targets of these exiting blocks) are called the exit blocks. getExitingBlocks in LoopInfoImpl.h is the code you’re interested in. By definition: one of the successor’s of the exiting block is an exit block, and it should have another

Hi All, I am trying to build the 'lld' linker on Mac OS 10.9, but during the build, I am getting the errors. Following are the steps that I have followed: 1.     I have downloaded the ‘llvm-stable’ source code from the following location:   https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/tree/stable   2.     Machine details(on which llvm source code isbeing built) are as follows: $ sw_vers

On June 22, 2017 at 5:51:39 AM, Pavel Labath (labath at google.com) wrote: I don't have any concrete feedback, but: - +1 for removing the "FastDemagler" - If you already construct an AST as a part of your demangling process, would it be possible to export that AST for external consumption somehow? Right now in lldb we sometimes need to parse the demangled name (to get the

On 6/21/17 5:42 PM, Rui Ueyama wrote: > I'm very interested in your work because I've just started writing a > demangler for the Microsoft mangling scheme. What I found in the > current Itanium demangler is the same as you -- it looks like it > allocates too much memory during parsing and concatenates std::strings > too often. I could see there's a (probably big)

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> > wrote: > > > > well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you > mean libc++'s demangler? > > Thanks for explaining, this is the first time

Hi all, We know that 'ItaniumDemangle' has been added into llvm lib to resolve demangling related issues. And if we dump mangled function name '_Z3duti' into 'char *llvm::itaniumDemangle(const char *mangled_name, char *buf, size_t *n, int *status)', we will get 'dut(int)'. So my question is: How can I just get the function name 'dut' without parameters,

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < asiri.rathnayake at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > well, top-of-branch lldb

Hi Fangqing, llvm::itaniumDemangle() doesn't yet provide this functionality, but I'm working on adding it in now for the LLDB folks (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2018-January/013186.html). I should have a patch up Very Soon! If you would like I can CC you to it. Thanks, Erik On 2018-03-16 2:15 PM, Fangqing Du via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi all, > > We know that

Hi, I am writing a loop pass to replace the backedge with an edge from latch to exit. Now I just replace the terminator of latch with another BranchInst, and the loop will not be a loop after my pass. However, it turns out a failure of loopverify after executing my pass: opt: ~/llvm/llvm-trunk/include/llvm/Analysis/LoopInfoImpl.h:297: void llvm::LoopBase<N, M>::verifyLoop() const [with

This is Greg's area, he'll be able to answer in detail how the name chopper gets used. IIRC it chops demangled names, so it is indirectly a client of the demangler, but it doesn't use the demangler to do this directly. Name lookup is done by finding all the base name matches, then comparing the context. We don't do a very good job of doing fuzzy full name matches - for instance

my build environment: Win7 x64 VStudio 2017 Community Edition 15.8.4 (latest) CMake 3.12.1 (x86) git 2.19.0 (latest, x64) Python 2.7.2 (x86) my build steps: open VS2017 x64 developer command prompt cd D:\projects\fun\jit_tests mkdir llvm cd llvm git clone https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm mkdir llvm-build cd llvm-build cmake -G "Visual Studio 15 2017 Win64" -DBUILD_SHARED_LIBS=ON

well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you mean libc++'s demangler? FYI when I said 14+% (and now it's 17%), I mean the overall performance of starting lldb, not just the demangler itself. It's probably several times faster now with this change (https://reviews.llvm.org/D32500) On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>

> On Dec 15, 2016, at 6:18 AM, Dave Bozier via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all, > > > We’re hoping to replace the demangler in some of our tools to use the LLVM demangler. We’d like to enhance it with missing functionality (legal names that it cannot demangle) and provide a set of tests that we use with the demangler that we currently use. >

On May 7, 2013, at 8:26 PM, zhiyuan yang <sjtu.yzy at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am writing a loop pass to replace the backedge with an edge from latch to exit. > Now I just replace the terminator of latch with another BranchInst, and the loop will not be a loop after my pass. However, it turns out a failure of loopverify after executing my pass: > > opt:

Hi, I am seeing an LLVM build failure with recent LLD on x86 like: [...] lib/libLLVMCodeGen.a lib/libLLVMBitWriter.a lib/libLLVMScalarOpts.a lib/libLLVMAgg ressiveInstCombine.a lib/libLLVMInstCombine.a lib/libLLVMTransformUtils.a lib/libLLVMDebugInfoDWARF.a lib/lib LLVMMCDisassembler.a lib/libLLVMExecutionEngine.a lib/libLLVMTarget.a lib/libLLVMAnalysis.a lib/libLLVMProfil eData.a

On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:33 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > On Mar 3, 2018, at 11:30 PM, Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev < > cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > To explain to others who didn't follow that thread: > > GDB currently does something amazingly stupid (and has since i wrote it) > to find the RTTI type. There were no other good options

Sorry for forgetting to reply all... It works! Thank you very much! But I also wonder how do you know this function will work while there are no documents noticing that. I try learning LLVM by reading its code, but soon feel lost in so many functions. Just like I have many tools, but don't know which to use and what difference it could make. Is there some better ways to learn LLVM? On Wed,

On Sun, 4 Mar 2018 at 20:33, John McCall via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Seems like a reasonable project! Maybe we can get a SoC student to make a > standalone C++ demangler library with a tree API (an unstable one should be > fine), and debuggers can just use that instead of relying on the OS's > cxa_demangle. (I'm really not sure why

> On Mar 4, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 12:33 AM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com <mailto:rjmccall at apple.com>> wrote: >> On Mar 3, 2018, at 11:30 PM, Daniel Berlin via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: >> >> To

I'm trying to do a simple build from the git 8.0.0 sources. The sources seem to build OK but a link step fails from running out of memory. I need some clues how to figure out where the bottleneck might be. The cmake command is: cmake -G Ninja                                          \     -DLLVM_TARGETS_TO_BUILD=X86                         \