similar to: [RFC] Adding a cls intrinsic for AArch64

With the correct list this time. On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > in the last month I spent some time implementing the missing MachO > specific features in llvm-readobj, and converting all the remaining > tests that used macho-dump to the new format. > llvm-readobj should have all the functionality that macho-dump had. If

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > Shankar's parallel for per-se didn't introduce any performance benefit > (or regression). > If the change I propose is safe, I would like to see Shankar's change > in (and this on top of it). > I have other related changes coming next, but I would like to tackle > them one at

Hi, I would like to propose, based on a previous discussion on llvm-dev, the following change. https://reviews.llvm.org/D56337 The main motivation for annotating member functions of ADT clases with LLVM_ALWAYS_INLINE was that of speeding up `check-llvm` at `-O0`. Turns out this significantly degrades the debuggability of fundamental classes in llvm itself, e.g. StringRef or SmallVector. After

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:00 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> > wrote: >> >> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 1:54 AM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> >> wrote: >> > >> > Shankar's parallel for per-se didn't introduce any

On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:08 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Graham Yiu via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I recently noticed that the new pass manager was not enabled at regular/thin >> LTO link step even if '-fexperimental-new-pass-manager' was specified in the

While playing with sanitizer in a downstream project, I found out this. /Users/davide/work/llvm-monorepo/llvm-project-20170507/llvm/tools/llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer/llvm-mc-assemble-fuzzer.cpp:207:32: error: reference to type 'std::unique_ptr<MCCodeEmitter>' could not bind to an lvalue of type 'llvm::MCCodeEmitter *' UseDwarfDirectory, IP, CE, MAB, ShowInst));

On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 7, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Kostya Serebryany via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> The asan bootstrap bot is unhappy with lld. >> Rui, os someone, please take a look. >> >>

On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Sep 5, 2017 at 8:16 AM, Nitish Srivastava via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I am trying to locate the passes run by clang/opt when it is passed the option -O3. Can someone point me where to look at? Eventually, I want to

On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 11:41 AM, vivek pandya via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I build FireFox-46.0.1 source with llvm to test interprocedural register > > allocation. > > The build was successful with out any runtime faliures,

Thank you. I went ahead with a speculative fix in r331568. I'm not familiar _at all_ with the tool, so, although the fix was straightforward, another pair of eyes from somebody familiar with the tool would be appreciated. On Fri, May 4, 2018 at 5:10 PM, George Karpenkov <ekarpenkov at apple.com> wrote: > It worked in August. > Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did

Sean Silva via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > No tests fail with the patch below, so I would say it's pretty useless. It > seems that the C bindings are the only user but we can probably just have them > return IPSCCP instead. I don't necessarily think your conclusion is wrong, but the patch isn't proving what you think it's proving. In fact, the

Hi everybody. NewGVN was recently committed and a few minute ago I added a flag to enable the new experimental pass. For the brave soul, passing `-mllvm -enable-newgvn` should do the trick. We'll be happy to receive bug reports to analyze/fix, bonus point if they contain a synthetic/reduced testcase. Open a bug linked to https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=30995 would be probably best so

Thanks, Looks like inst combine do the job On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:36 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 9:24 PM, Hongbin Zheng via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Is there a pass in LLVM that can optimize: > > > > if (x) > > a[i] = y0; > > else > >

On Dec 17, 2016 7:41 PM, "Sean Silva" <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 6:32 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 17, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> > wrote: > [...] > > > I don't have an infrastructure to measure the runtime performance > >

On Mon, Dec 19, 2016 at 4:24 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Davide, > > Thanks for the analysis, it's really interesting! And I'm really glad that we now put more and more attention at the compile time! > > Just recently I've been looking into historical compile time data as well, and have had similar conclusions. The regressions

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Scott Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've been working on improving the startup performance of lldb, and ran into an issue with llvm::HashString. It works a character at a time, which creates a long

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Rui Ueyama <ruiu at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 6:30 PM, Davide Italiano <davide at freebsd.org> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Rafael Espíndola via llvm-dev >> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> Thank you for the explanation! That makes sense. >>

Davide Italiano <davide.italiano at gmail.com> writes: >> I couldn't find any support for this on FreeBSD. >> > > AFAIK FreeBSD supports some variant of /proc that should map Linux > (although the mapping isn't 1:1). > Does it lack support for this? Thanks for looking into this, BTW! O_TMPFILE is the main thing that seems to be missing. Cheers, Rafael

The pass is pretty rudimental (as the comment at the top of the file hints), and it seems LLVM already has IPSCCP (which should do a better job at interprocedural constant propagation). I'm also not entirely sure it's used anywhere. Is there any reason to keep it around? Thanks, -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" --

It worked in August. Last time I’ve asked (again, in August) someone did seem to care, but it is inevitable it would bitrot if it’s not built in any of the bots. George > On May 4, 2018, at 2:53 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > While playing with sanitizer in a downstream project, I found out this. > >