similar to: [LLVMdev] PING: 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

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

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

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 >

Hi all, 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 This at the moment does not contain the description how the size of the Use class will be reduced from 16 to 12 bytes, I am going to send that in a separate patch. This wave primarily consists of changes that are

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

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 > > >>>

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

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

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

On Apr 18, 5:51 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, Owen Anderson <resis... at mac.com> wrote: > > > Gabor, > > > Have you updated llvm2cpp to generate calls to the appropriate new > > Yes. These are caught by my conversion scripts. > > > constructors?  Also, could you check the code in the tutorials to make > >

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

On Apr 17, 7:01 pm, Owen Anderson <resis... at mac.com> wrote: > Gabor, > > Have you updated llvm2cpp to generate calls to the appropriate new Yes. These are caught by my conversion scripts. > constructors? Also, could you check the code in the tutorials to make > sure it matches the new API? Good point, will do. Thanks, Gabor > > --Owen

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

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

> 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

Hi all, with r49277 I have checked in the API changes for the first wave of modifications related to the size reduction of Use objects. Several creation methods take the place of the previously used "operator new". I have changed the llvm-gcc4.2 and clang projects, but if you have any llvm projects that tracks the SVN trunk of the API you will have to upgrade. in *tcsh* I have used

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

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

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. >> I hope that this is interesting, but I'd like to ask anybody who is >> comfortable with performance testing to help provide some hard