similar to: Help on understanding assume shape array processing and array descriptors in LLVM IR

Hello, I believe these descriptors are specific to flang, not to LLVM. You should probably ask your question on flang-dev list. Thank you, --Eugene From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Venkataramanan Kumar via llvm-dev Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 8:44 AM To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: [llvm-dev] Help on understanding assume shape array

Given an object o of ElemType in an instance of EquivalenceClasses, I need to get a list of all members of the equivalence class that o is in. For various reasons, it is easiest if I could get an EquivalenceClasses::iterator that I can pass to member_begin and member_end. So naturally, I did something like this (pseudo-C++): EquivalenceClasses::iterator i = equiv.findValue(o);

I am investigating changing BoundsChecking to use address-based rather than size- & offset-based tests. To explain, here is a short code sample cribbed from one of the tests: %mem = tail call i8* @calloc(i64 1, i64 %elements) %memobj = bitcast i8* %mem to i64* %ptr = getelementptr inbounds i64* %memobj, i64 %index %4 = load i64* %ptr, align 8 Currently, the IR for bounds checking

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your interest and for your deep analysis. Unfortunately, your approach doesn't catch all bugs and is vulnerable to an attack. Consider the following case: ...................... | ----- obj --- | | end ^ ptr ^ ^ end-of-memory The scenario is as follows: - an object is allocated in the last page of the address space - obj is byte

Hi All, We've got msidn configured: Port 1: TE-mode BRI S/T interface line (for phone lines) -> Protocol: DSS1 (Euro ISDN) -> childcnt: 2 -------- mISDN_close: fid(3) isize(131072) inbuf(0x8fd5060) irp(0x8fd5060) iend(0x8fd5060) and running on Asterisk 1.4.21.2: pbx*CLI> misdn show stacks BEGIN STACK_LIST: * Port 1 Type TE Prot. PMP L2Link UP L1Link:UP Blocked:0 Debug:0

> On Jun 2, 2020, at 4:21 PM, comex via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > While this is a different area of the codebase, another thing that > would benefit greatly from being moved out of Clang is function call > ABI handling. Currently, that handling is split awkwardly between > Clang and LLVM proper, forcing frontends that implement C FFI to > either

WARNING: This is not compatible with the previous lz4 patchset. If you''re using experimental compression that isn''t in mainline kernels, be prepared to backup and restore or decompress before upgrading, and have backups in case it eats data (which appears not to be a problem any more, but has been during development). These patches add lz4 and lz4hc compression

Hi, so here it is, LZ4 compression method inside btrfs. The patchset is based on top of current Chris'' for-linus + Andi''s snappy implementation + the fixes from Li Zefan. Passes xfstests and stresstests. I haven''t measured performance on wide range of hardware or workloads, rather wanted to publish the patches before I get distracted again. I''d like to ask

Hal, Eric, Johannes, David and Peter, I lead the development of OpenMP for AMD GPUs and work with others at AMD who support OpenMP on AMD CPUs. On behalf of our development teams, we greatly appreciate your efforts to move the development of flang into a subproject in the llvm-project repository and to integrate this development effort into the overall LLVM development community. Like most

Hi llvm-dev We believe we have completed enough of the agreed pre-upstreaming changes to start talking about merging F18 into LLVM. The live status is tracked at [1]. There are a few details that we have not managed to hammer out and we propose to tackle inside the LLVM monorepo. I have put a summary of these at the bottom of this mail. Does anyone have any objections to flang being merged into

For those of us not familiar with clang internals, it would be helpful if you could describe the parts of clang that you're considering sharing and explain what existing code they would replace in flang (if any) and what benefits we gain by sharing them. In particular, these were mentioned previously: DiagnosticsEngine, SourceManager, SourceLocation, FileManager, VFS Thanks, Tim On

Hi Mehdi, I can't replicate those failures at my end, could you let me know what OS, compiler and CMake flags you're using so I can try and reproduce? Thanks! David Truby ________________________________ From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Sent: 07 April 2020 06:44 To: Richard Barton

Hi Hal, On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:38 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > On 1/7/20 4:38 PM, Doerfert, Johannes via llvm-dev wrote: > > On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > > Hey Peter - would you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed

Attached is the log. I'm building with: clang version 10.0.0 (https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/ 3a6da1122b990386edeba0987d0d1fdc9c8dc53d) Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu Thread model: posix On some Ubuntu-like distribution. I also ran with ASAN once and it found a bunch of leaks in bin/tco. Best, -- Mehdi On Tue, Apr 7, 2020 at 4:36 AM Richard Barton <Richard.Barton at

Hi All, The flang project (a Fortran compiler) is getting ready to join the monorepo. We intend to preserve the existing history by rewriting the existing commits as a linear series of commits on top of llvm-project. I understand the flang community would like to do this before the LLVM 10 branch in due in mid January, so please speak up soon if you see anything needing fixing in what I

On 4/30/19 9:33 AM, David Greene via llvm-dev wrote: > "fortran" seems far too generic to me. What distinguishes it from a > different Fortran compiler? > > What about "flange" (Fortran language environment)? It's distinct from > the already-in-use-by-two-projects "flang" yet fits in with the existing > "clang" naming scheme. Plus it

*TL;DR* We propose some non-trivial refactoring in Clang and LLVM to enable further work on Flang driver. *SUMMARY* We would like to start extracting the driver/frontend code from Clang (alongside the code that the driver/frontend depends on, e.g. Diagnostics) and move the components that could be re-used by non-C-based languages to LLVM. From our initial investigation we see that these

Neat, another fortran compiler option. Does anyone have a list/comparison of all the LLVM fortran compilers? I'm not really tracking this, since Fortran isn't really my area of expertise, but I've seen the following. Perhaps there are even more? "Flang". The original of the name, I think? Abandoned. https://github.com/llvm-flang/flang "Fort" -- fork of the above

On 01/07, David Blaikie via llvm-dev wrote: > Hey Peter - would you be able to link to/describe the history on this > process/decision. I can find one old thread where this was first proposed ( > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2019-February/130497.html ) with > some general positive responses and a lot of questions. > > I see there's a flang-dev list, though

Hi, [I started this discussion on a single mailing list (flang-dev [0]) but this is a notice to the others (llvm, clang, openmp) so we hopefully get all interested parties involved.] This is an RFC for the design of the OpenMP front-ends under the LLVM umbrella. It is necessary to talk about this now as Flang (aka. F18) is maturing at a very promising rate and about to become a sub-project