similar to: Comments in LLVM blog

Hi! I think that comments section will help people to organize the Q&A in the same webpage. But it also leads to spam as you said, However, I don't have any strong rationale for enabling them :) Thanks for your reply Chris! Pree On 26 March 2018 at 22:45, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev < >

Hi: Since you mentioned this, I was wondering if Chris or someone else could take over the existing /r/LLVM and make it an official forum or something. In that case we had Reddit’s anti-spam measures in place and probably a better forum-like experience. Mailing list could be really disturbing occasionally Zhang > On 26 Mar 2018, at 18:22, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

On Mar 26, 2018, at 10:12 AM, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hello all! > I would like to know why there aren't any comments section on LLVM Project Blog? Enabling comments opens a can of worms w.r.t. spam and other problems. Hacker news and reddit also have better structures for discussion, so there isn’t a strong motivation for doing so.

Hi Guys! I'm Praveen Velliengiri, studying third year Msc Data Science at PSG COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY. I would like to participate in GSoC 2018 under LLVM Organization. I went through the GSoC Project ideas page and the LLVM mailing list. I really liked the *FUNCTION ATTRIBUTE INFERENCE *project. I'm starting to make initial studies for the project. I'm new to LLVM i don't know

Hi Guys! I have a suggestion about the projects in idea section. Projects <http://llvm.org/OpenProjects.html#gsoc18> are listed as GSoC 2018 followed by GSoC 2017, I hope that some projects in the GSoC 2017 section are already taken by previous year gsoc students, could you please remove those projects from the list and include the remaining projects in GSoC 2018. Because one cannot make

I just removed GSoC 2017 from the Table of Content. I guess it is what Praveen meant. S 2018-03-18 20:08 GMT+01:00 Anton Korobeynikov via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Hello > > This is already done. All the relevant projects from 2017 were moved to 2018. > > On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

Hello This is already done. All the relevant projects from 2017 were moved to 2018. On Sun, Mar 18, 2018 at 7:12 PM, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi Guys! > I have a suggestion about the projects in idea section. Projects are listed > as GSoC 2018 followed by GSoC 2017, I hope that some projects in the GSoC > 2017 section are already

Hello all ! As you (Nuno Lopes) suggested I went through the basics of interprocedural analysis. I'm new to LLVM and Compilers in general. I have looked llvm/lib/Transforms/IPO/FuntionAttrs.cpp and InferFunctionAttrs.cpp. As I'm new to compiler technology I find difficult to come up with new ideas with respect to function attributes. I would love to hear any additional resources like

Hi, On 03/02/2018 20:49, Praveen Velliengiri via llvm-dev wrote: > Hey Guys ! > I'm interested to participate in Google Summer of Code 2018 for LLVM. > Any Projects (new features or reimplementation) related to recent " > Meltdown & Spectre " Problem. > I'm a beginner in Compiler Technology. Could you please recommend some > videos or blog post about

Yes, I confirm. Le ven. 20 déc. 2019 à 19:12, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> a écrit : > Hi, > Orc v2 is different from the internal structure then Orc v1 not just in > API level. > TLS support is not in ORC for a long time at least I'm aware of , Could > you please confirm that ORC v1 actually compiles and run the code with > Thread locals?

yeah i m concerned about jit compilation time.. On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:57 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Yes I think so.. Could you please tell me in which context (compile time > improvement)? That is whether you are interested in knowing whether having > ORC instead of MCJIT, will increase your LLVM Build time or you are > concerned

And yet the same C++ code using thread-local variables works fine (or seems to) when compiled with Orc v1. Does the change to the Orc API really make thread-local storage more difficult? On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 3:52 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Oh, I think Linux don't have support for TLS. > > On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 at 20:19, Geoff Levner

You can add symbols from Archieve via StaticLibrarySearchGenerator. But it is added recently though On Tue, 27 Aug 2019 at 21:02, Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Geoff, > I tried it, but I can't able to reproduce it. > > Test Program: > #include <fstream> > int main() > { > std::ifstream stream1, stream2; >

Hi Praveen, Thanks for the tip, but Xcode seems to spend all the time running tablegen "custom shell scripts", one by one at a time, not linking. Linking is actually very fast, possibly less than a second. The “scripts” that take longer are “AArch64CommonTableGen" and “AMDGPUCommonTableGen”. As said this is on LLVM 9.0. However, on LLVM 7.0.1, the same process takes just 5-6

Thanks Praveen. Is it suitable for LLVM 7.0.1 ? Apart from flexibility, do we see any compile time improvements as well with ORC? On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM Praveen Velliengiri < praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > MCJIT hopefully will be removed in subsequent releases. I think the last > release version is more suitable. > > On Sun, 30 Jun 2019 at 11:45, Ashok

Hi, Yeah, now I understand the problem here. Thanks. But I too have another doubt in "Bounds check bypass store" In this example in the Speculative load hardening : unsigned char local_buffer[4];unsigned char *untrusted_data_from_caller = ...;unsigned long untrusted_size_from_caller = ...;if (untrusted_size_from_caller < sizeof(local_buffer)) { // Speculative execution enters here

Hi Praveen, On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:05, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Could you please send me your unoptimized and expected optimized code? The default implementation only contains some transformations. It would be helpful to know what you are actually trying. > Optimize Module is just a function object. > You can view the code here:

Hi Praveen, Please, can you elaborate on this?. What do do mean by “building as shared objects”. Thanks, John > On 30 Jun 2019, at 07:32, Praveen Velliengiri <praveenvelliengiri at gmail.com> wrote: > > Maybe try building llvm as a shared objects.. > > On Jun 30, 2019 1:30 AM, "Joan Lluch via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

For example, the illustrate part says "ES.getMainJITDylib().setGenerator" while the full code list says "ES.getMainJITDylib().addGenerator", I guess the API is changed, the tutorial part is up to date while the full code list leaves to the old version. On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:51 AM Yafei Liu <yfliu at mobvoi.com> wrote: > Yes, the function type mismatch, just copy

Hi, Thanks for your email, I understand that the execution stalls until the predicated state is computed, then we mask pointers with all_zeros_mask if there is a mis-prediction. But I understand that as soon as the condition value is available, the processor can check about it's assumptions and revert back. That is, If the branch prediction is correct during speculation, we mask with