similar to: [LLVMdev] 2.2 Prerelease (version 2) available for testing

I've done some minimal testing on FreeBSD 8.x i386. When running make check I get: # of expected passes 2188 # of unexpected failures 1 # of expected failures 6 The error output is: Running /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/dg.exp ... FAIL: /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll for

NVIDIA G98 mesa-dri-drivers-11.2.1-2.20160501.fc22.x86_64 (incl. mesa commit 38fcf7c) vdpauinfo | grep -i deint DEINTERLACE_TEMPORAL y DEINTERLACE_TEMPORAL_SPATIAL - https://cgit.freedesktop.org/vdpau/libvdpau/tree/include/vdpau/vdpau.h#n3420 #define VDP_VIDEO_MIXER_FEATURE_DEINTERLACE_TEMPORAL ((VdpVideoMixerFeature)0) /** * \hideinitializer * \brief A

Hello, I'm making a compiler utilizing LLVM. Because I want the compiler to support 128bit floating-point operations, I added the code for 128bit floating-point operations and tested these operations in i686, x86_64, SPARCv8 and SPARCv9 machines. Generated codes by LLVM operated normally when using x86_64, SPARCv8 and SPARCv9 machines, but generated codes in a x86 machine produce wrong

On 09.05.2016 19:37, Ilia Mirkin wrote: > Mesa only supports the non-spatial temporal deinterlace (deint=3). I'm > guessing that due to some unfortunate issues, you're no longer getting > hw accelerated video decoding. Check in vdpauinfo to make sure that > it's indeed showing the relevant codec as supported. If not, you can > turn that back on by updating to mesa

Hi, I'm having some problems cross-compiling from ppc (OS X) to x86 object files and to ia64, at all. I'd appreciate some advice as to whether or not I'm actually supposed to be able to do this, and what's wrong if so. Here's how I configured it: ../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/configure --with-llvmgccdir=$LLVMGCCDIR --prefix=$HOME/Documents/hpcl/LLVM/install The results work fine

OK, I noticed a few problems with my previous email, so I will boil the question down: What I want to do is compile for x86 and ia64 from darwin. I also want to load my own passes into opt and llc. Should I be using llvmc at all here, or should I be doing something like llvmgcc -> gccas -> opt -> llc ? I've given up on the filetype=obj argument, so now the problem is that llc is

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm right,

Hi, > On Fri, 2011-04-29 at 09:05 +0200, Peter J. Philipp wrote: >> You don't check for malloc failure. I've made a patch that is possibly >> wrong but it saves the program from SIGSEGV and replaces it with SIGABRT. On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Philipp Schafft wrote: > But I have a question: > Not all of them (only had a brief look at the patch) look to be in a >

Hello Matthijs, Separating mechanism from policy is a good thing for the LoopUnroll pass. Instead of moving the policy to a subclass though, I think it'd be better to move the mechanism, the unrollLoop function, out to be a standalone utility function, with the LoopInfo object passed in explicitly. FoldBlockIntoPredecessor would also be good to make into a standalone utility function, since

Hi All, the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. before applying the patch, please execute svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, which is now used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.

Is anyone currently working on overhauling the command-line processing code? We're currently having some design issues with this component, and I'd like to start a larger conversation on it. For context, I am talking from an "LLVM as a library" perspective instead of an "LLVM as a set of tools" perspective. In a nut-shell, the problems we are facing are as follows:

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

Ah, so the error changed.. ? Can you try ? samba-tool domain join empresa.com.br DC -k yes -d 3 --server=samba4-dc01.empresa.com.br? so we try to join through samba4-dc1 and not the windows DC. ? Looking at below again. (objectclass=primaryDomain))' base: 'cn=Primary Domains': No such object: dsdb_search at ../source4/dsdb/common/util.c:4691) and from

The loop rotation pass does modify the function, which I'm guessing means that a FunctionPassManager can be used to run LoopPasses (this is not obvious to me after looking through the FunctionPassManager code). Unfortunately none of the other passes I'm using (ScalarEvolution, LCSSA, IndVarSimplify, and LoopUnroll) appear to have an effect. I verified that the function can be loop

Hi, I am trying to set loop unrolling as a required pass. AU.addRequired<LoopUnroll>(); should I include any header file? How can I be possessive that "LoopUnroll" is the name I need ? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090606/aaab7bd1/attachment.html>

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify

On 1/18/17 3:55 PM, Davide Italiano via llvm-dev wrote: > On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 6:02 PM, Mikhail Zolotukhin > <mzolotukhin at apple.com> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100%

Ah but how did you compile the clang-4.0 you were using? Does it run faster if you compile it with clang-4.0? :) On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 4:09 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On this topic, I just tried to build ToT with clang-3.9.1 and clang-4.0 > and the total time to complete `ninja clang` on this machine went from > 12m54s to

Hello LLVM developers, I have a few questions regarding analysis and transformation of Machine IRs. I am writing a scheduling pass that transforms single basic block loops. Details of the pass can be found in an email I sent two weeks ago. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2010-August/033808.html I have changed my pass to run before Live Variable Analysis since then. 1, Induction