similar to: llvm::sort - A new wrapper to std::sort

On 13 April 2018 at 21:24, Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Going forward please make sure to avoid use of std::sort and instead use > llvm::sort. Maybe we should add a note on the usage of llvm::sort to the > LLVM Coding Standards? Very definitely. I quite like the idea, but banning a standard library function on this scale is a big step and

I see that the following test fails if reverse iteration of SmallPtrSet is enabled: /clang/test/SemaCXX/warn-loop-analysis.cpp/ This is because in SemaStmt.cpp we iterate SmallPtrSet and output warnings about the variables not used in the loop. Expected output: /warning: variables 'i', 'j', and 'k' used in loop condition not modified/ Output with reverse iteration:

Ping From: Mandeep Singh Grang [mailto:mgrang at codeaurora.org] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 4:34 PM To: 'llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu' Cc: 'ghoflehner at apple.com'; 'apazos at codeaurora.org'; mgrang at codeaurora.org Subject: Question on Machine Combiner Pass Hi, In the file lib/CodeGen/MachineCombiner.cpp I see that in the function

Everyone, There is non-determinism in LLVM codegen in the following scenarios: 1. Between back-to-back runs of the same LLVM toolchain 2. Between Release vs Release+Asserts toolchains 3. Between Linux vs Windows toolchains The main reasons for the non-determinism in codegen are: 1. Iteration of unordered containers (like SmallPtrSet, DenseMap, etc) where the iteration order is undefined 2.

Joerg, Referring to your patch https://reviews.llvm.org/rL291172. / switch (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType()) {// // case ExceptionHandling::SjLj:// // case ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI:// // case ExceptionHandling::ARM:// //*isCFIMoveForDebugging = true;*// //*if (MAI->getExceptionHandlingType() != ExceptionHandling::DwarfCFI)*/*/ /**/ break;/*/ // for (auto &F:

Everyone, The following patch to reverse iterate SmallPtrSet's has now been merged: https://reviews.llvm.org/D26718 This is how LLVM behavior will change due to this patch: - In LLVM builds with *assertions enabled*, SmallPtrSet's would always be reverse iterated by default. This default behavior can be overridden via the flag "-mllvm -reverse-iterate=<true/false>".

Thanks for your response David. 1) I'm not sure it's do-able. I don't know of any nice way to track whether an ordered walk of an unordered container leaks out into the final output of the program. Only iterating over an unordered container is probably not a sufficient hint (it'd have a high false positive rate to warn on every instance of that) - and I don't have any

Hi all, Last year I had shared with the community my findings about instances of non-determinism in llvm codegen. The major source of which was the iteration of unordered containers resulting in non-deterministic iteration order. In order to uncover such instances we had introduced "reverse iteration" of unordered containers (currently only enabled for SmallPtrSet). I would now

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Hans Wennborg <hans at chromium.org> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Grang, Mandeep Singh via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> Everyone, >> >> The following patch to reverse iterate SmallPtrSet's has now been merged: >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D26718 >> >> This is how LLVM

Thanks Bradley. I see that the features set in /ARM.td/ get written to the generated file /<build>/llvm/lib/Target/ARM/ARMGenSubtargetInfo.inc./ Here the ProcA9 features appear in /ARMFeatureKV/ table: /{ "a9", "Cortex-A9 ARM processors", { ARM::ProcA9 }, { *ARM::FeatureFP16* } }, /With your change, the features for ProcA9 in the above entry are empty.//This

> On 2016-Nov-15, at 15:16, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mandeep Singh via llvm-dev Grang" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, "mehdi amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, dexonsmith at apple.com, zinob at codeaurora.org >> Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016

On 30 August 2017 at 18:51, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 11:45 AM Grang, Mandeep Singh via cfe-dev > <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> I wanted to share a couple of updates on the effort to uncover >> non-determinism in LLVM through reverse iteration. >>

Hi Bradley, I was doing some performance analysis for ARMv7 (cortex-a9) and I noticed that one of my benchmarks degraded by 93%. I have tracked the regression down to the following commit by you: / //commit 7c1b77248baaeafec5d6433c3d1da9a2e2b69595// //Author: Bradley Smith <bradley.smith at arm.com>// //Date: Mon Nov 16 11:10:19 2015 +0000// // [ARM] Introduce subtarget features per

In the past, I had added the ability in LLVM to uncover 2 types of non-deterministic behaviors: iteration of unordered containers with pointer-like keys and sorting of elements with the same keys. Now, I wanted to add checkers for these (and other types of non-deterministic behaviors) so that they could be applied more widely. I also realize that not all of these may be doable at

Hi All, I wanted to share a couple of updates on the effort to uncover non-determinism in LLVM through reverse iteration. 1. Reverse iteration has now been enabled for DenseMap (https://reviews.llvm.org/D35043) 2. We have setup a nightly reverse iteration buildbot (http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/reverse-iteration). This builds all LLVM targets with reverse iteration ON and runs ninja

On Thu, Jul 6, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of > > Grang, Mandeep Singh via llvm-dev > > Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2017 2:56 AM > > To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > > Subject: [llvm-dev]

On Tue, Dec 13, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Grang, Mandeep Singh via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Everyone, > > The following patch to reverse iterate SmallPtrSet's has now been merged: > https://reviews.llvm.org/D26718 > > This is how LLVM behavior will change due to this patch: > - In LLVM builds with assertions enabled, SmallPtrSet's would always be

I'm sorry, but I don't think LLDB has any release notes. On Sat, Aug 26, 2017 at 9:49 PM, Kamil Rytarowski <n54 at gmx.com> wrote: > LLDB: > > Switched the NetBSD platform to new remote tracing capable framework. > > Preliminary support for tracing NetBSD(/amd64) processes and core files > with a single thread. > > On 25.08.2017 02:44, Hans Wennborg via

Ok. How much work was it to enable ARM64 codegen? Is it is significantly more work than for Linux targets? Are there any special relocations in ARM64 land? On Mon, May 21, 2018 at 3:38 AM, Martin Storsjö <martin at martin.st> wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2018, Hayden Livingston wrote: > >> So are you saying that LLVM can be built as ARM64 on Windows now? >> CMake doesn't

On Mon, 21 May 2018, Hayden Livingston wrote: > So are you saying that LLVM can be built as ARM64 on Windows now? > CMake doesn't show me an option for ARM64 when using MSVC on Windows. > I have the latest CMake. I'm saying that LLVM can produce code for the Windows/ARM64 target. As for compiling LLVM itself to run on ARM64 on Windows, I don't know how to configure MSVC to