similar to: [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

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

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

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 > > >>>

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

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

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

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

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

Not really urgent, but I keep getting conflicts the day or another. Cheers, Gabor

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

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 algorithm is desired at all. So I'd solicit comments from the code owners (Use.{h,cpp}) and anybody who is interested. For closer scrutiny, the code is here:

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

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

Hi all, I have two llvm projects in different stages of execution: 1) Parallel "make check". Modelled after the successful clang "make test -jX" experiment, I am now bold enough to sink my teeth into the LLVM test suite. I have a prototype implementation, along the same lines, ready. 2) <class Use> size reduction. After some conversation with Chris I think we are ready

Looks like people send many names in the contest, so shall I do too. I propose "Lepton", loosely meaning light (featherweight) in Greek. It is used in particle physics to refer to very light particles (electrons, muons). For me it also has the connotations of fastness and restlessness (in the LLVM sense of post-compile optimization). See more at:

Hi PPC folks, as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Just curious, Gabor

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run