similar to: [LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 3000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1"

2008 Apr 04
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, heisenbug wrote: >> point taken. thanks! > > > Whatever I try I get something like this: > > ggreif$ cd MultiSource/ > ggreif$ make > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `Output/be.bc', needed by `Output/ > burg.linked.rbc'. Stop. > make[1]: *** [Burg/.makeall] Error 2 > make: *** [Applications/.makeall] Error 2 This is the
2008 Apr 04
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > heisenbug wrote: > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > >>> passes with this patch :) > > >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it
2008 Apr 04
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: ... > > > 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > passes with this patch :) > > I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and > following a readme? After building an llvm-gcc (4.2.1), see below, I tried running this. I configured: ./configure
2008 Apr 04
3
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
On Apr 4, 8:06 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > heisenbug wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > >>>
2008 Apr 04
2
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
heisenbug wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test >>> passes with this patch :) >>> >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and >> following a readme? >> > > > After
2010 Jul 21
1
[LLVMdev] Is there a guide to LLVM's components?
I constructed an LLVM 2.7 VS solution with cmake, but it has 66 projects: ALL_BUILD, ".\ALL_BUILD.vcproj" BrainF, "examples\BrainF\BrainF.vcproj" Fibonacci, "examples\Fibonacci\Fibonacci.vcproj" FileCheck, "utils\FileCheck\FileCheck.vcproj" HowToUseJIT,
2010 Jul 22
2
[LLVMdev] Is there a guide to LLVM's components?
One thing that helps me understand complex software is a dependency graph. I found an LLVM dependency graph at https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/tags/RELEASE_16/docs/UsingLibraries.html#dependencies but it's really messy and hard to follow. From that graph I made a cleaner graph by hand (attached)... sorry about the fax-quality scan. But I have some questions about it... -
2008 Apr 03
5
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
Chris wrote: > On Mar 26, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > > here comes the patch for the first wave of Use class size reduction. > > > > I have split it into 3 files, corresponding to > > - header changes > > - implementation changes > > - applications > > nice! > > > This at the moment does not contain the description how the >
2008 Mar 30
0
[LLVMdev] PING: PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1
Not really urgent, but I keep getting conflicts the day or another. Cheers, Gabor
2008 Apr 08
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave1 (algorithms)
As promised here comes the algorithmic part of the project. I have documented the way how the User object can be recovered from an array of Use objects. I have included a reference implementation in Haskell, along with a randomized test suite, which passes. This is just for those who want to manually prove the correctness of the C++ algorithm. If you wish I can remove (or move to another
2008 Apr 17
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
Gabor, Have you updated llvm2cpp to generate calls to the appropriate new constructors? Also, could you check the code in the tutorials to make sure it matches the new API? --Owen On Apr 15, 2008, at 5:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is
2008 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
> Unfortunately I had to introduce a new GlobalVariable::Create > mechanism (I hoped to have nailed all in wave 1, but life is cruel). > I will submit scripts for the easy conversion of external projects > like the last time. One request is to explicity explain the new mechanism so people don't have to read the diffs or extrapolate from the conversion scripts. Please send a
2008 Apr 16
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even
2008 Apr 15
6
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
Hi All, here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is *active*. The User* inside of Use is even sometimes NULL, but the algorithm is able to recover it. If there is a non-null User* present, then I am asserting that it equals the computed value. I did not receive feedback for the algorithmic part yet, so I
2008 Apr 23
0
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
On Apr 17, 4:12 am, Chris Lattner <sa... at nondot.org> wrote: > On Apr 16, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Dan Gohman wrote: > > >> So, my idea is that these changes are performance neutral. > > I strongly agree with Dan that we need to measure performance to > ensure there is no significant performance regression. Dan, Chris, finally I am in possession of hard performance data
2008 Apr 16
5
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
On Apr 16, 2:13 am, Dan Gohman <goh... at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Gabor, > > Can you provide performance data for this? I'd > like to know what affect these changes have on > compile time. Hi Dan, Unfortunately, no. I can feed you with some speculation, though, see below. The reason why I cannot do measurements (at the moment) is that - I have no experience with
2010 Aug 10
2
[LLVMdev] Patch to fix BrainF runtime assertion failure
Hi all, I downloaded LLVM to play with today and found that the BrainF example compiler fails with an assertion error like so: examples$ ./BrainF -jit /tmp/test.bf BrainF: Instructions.cpp:242: void llvm::CallInst::init(llvm::Value*, llvm::Value* const*, unsigned int): Assertion `(NumParams == FTy->getNumParams() || (FTy->isVarArg() && NumParams > FTy->getNumParams()))
2009 Jun 02
0
[LLVMdev] Ubuntu: no .eh_frame_hdr table will be created
Hi, While building svn using CMake on an Ubuntu 9.04 system (gcc 4.3.3, binutils 2.19.1, 32-bit kernel and libs): Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llvm-dis [ 93%] Built target llvm-dis Scanning dependencies of target llc [ 93%] Building CXX object tools/llc/CMakeFiles/llc.dir/llc.cpp.o Linking CXX executable ../../bin/llc /usr/bin/ld: error in ../../lib/./LLVMX86AsmPrinter.o(.eh_frame); no
2009 Oct 04
4
[LLVMdev] LLVMdev Digest, Vol 64, Issue 5
Where exactly is this mythical Kaleidoscope example? I have llvm 2.5 installed. examples dsw$ ls BrainF Fibonacci Makefile ParallelJIT CMakeLists.txt HowToUseJIT ModuleMaker > Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2009 21:40:44 +0100 > From: Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org> > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] LLVM-Kaleidoscope tutorial > > 2009/10/3 Remy Demarest <remy.demarest at
2008 Apr 16
1
[LLVMdev] PATCH: Use size reduction -- wave2
On Apr 16, 2:42 am, "Tanya M. Lattner" <to... at nondot.org> wrote: > > Unfortunately I had to introduce a new GlobalVariable::Create > > mechanism (I hoped to have nailed all in wave 1, but life is cruel). > > I will submit scripts for the easy conversion of external projects > > like the last time. > > One request is to explicity explain the new