similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Server Back Up

Looks like some clocks are wrong, as shown by the timestamp on <http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-April/ 013731.html>. Cheers, Gabor On Apr 9, 6:28 am, John Criswell <crisw... at uiuc.edu> wrote: > Dear All, > > The LLVM server is back online.  If you find something that isn't > working, please let me know. > > Thanks for your patience. >

FYI, the mailing lists are handled by separate UIUC servers and are not hosted by the llvm server. All web, svn, etc are on the llvm server. John - Can you find out why the mailing list archives have incorrect time stamps? -Tanya On Apr 8, 2008, at 2:59 PM, heisenbug wrote: > Looks like some clocks are wrong, as shown by the timestamp > on

Tanya Lattner wrote: > FYI, the mailing lists are handled by separate UIUC servers and are > not hosted by the llvm server. All web, svn, etc are on the llvm server. > > John - Can you find out why the mailing list archives have incorrect > time stamps? > I'm pretty sure it was my laptop. The time was correct: 11:28. The problem was that I sent it at 11:28 am and not

Devang removed the old llvm/tools/lto directory and renamed lto2 -> lto. The end result of this is that 'svn up' may complain. If you get an error about this from svn, just do: $ rm -rf llvm/tools/lto* $ svn up llvm/tools to fix it, -Chris

I have experienced this with a svn 1.5 client but not with 1.4.6. Did anybody see this with a 1.4.6 (or older) client? Btw. what is the server version? Anyway this seems to be a bug in subversion. Cheers, Gabor PS: http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=users&msgNo=79361 On Jul 1, 5:27 am, Chris Lattner <clatt... at apple.com> wrote: > Devang removed the old

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

>I just sent a reply to Razvan with 3 patches that I think should be merged >into the release branch. I want to keep it somewhat in sync with mainline. >Can you try applying those 3 patches and let me know if it builds for you >and what version of MSVC you have? It doesn't build. first problem is patch 51098 that adds lib\VMCore\Use.cpp and lib\Transforms\Utils\UnrollLoop.cpp

On May 21, 11:21 pm, mor... at hue.no wrote: [snip] > > FYI I'm using Visual Studio 2005 Professional Edition (not Express). > > m. > > PS. The proposed fix (by heisenbug) to the warnings from the operator new in User.h doesn't work at all. Hmmm, this is really unfortunate. http://www.glenmccl.com/tip_025.htm confirms the given recipe. By "doesn't work at

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 > > >>>

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 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, 2008, at 2:50 AM, heisenbug wrote: > > And now here is my educated speculation: > There are 2 things that became slower > 1) Use::getUser() > 2) Use::get/set due to tagging. > > The former is seldom called: > > $ find lib -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep "getUser(" | wc -l > 41 The majority of those aren't actually Use::getUser, but

Hi all, looks like the WWDC has been a nice success, but it is over now and all devs are back to normal mode. I have written up a very subjective blog post here <http://heisenbug.blogspot.com/2010/06/my-grief-with-out-of-tree-code.html> in which I ask for clarifications to the development policy wrt. backing out of buildbot-proven patches because of (unintended) breakage in external

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, Doing some profiling of llc, I noticed that some bitvector operations took longer than usual. Then I noticed that too many copies of BitVector obejcts are created, even when such operations like &=, ^=, |= are performed on those bit vectors. I looked at the BitVector ADT implementation in BitVector.h and figured out that all assignment operations (except the usual assignment operator)

On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 23:59 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Nov 3, 2008, at 3:55 PM, heisenbug wrote: > > What about "inventing" pseudo-constants (which point to the right > > thing) and build the piece of IR with them. When done, grab mutex and > > RAUW it in. Alternatively, submit to a privileged thread that performs > > the RAUW. > > The trick is to

On 12/17/12 10:34 AM, Alexandru Ionut Diaconescu wrote: > Hello, > > I am a beginner of LLVM. I am trying to move among the instructions of > a BasicBlock and I cannot. In this particular example, I try to get > the previous instruction of the end instruction. I am trying 2 methods: > > > > 1. I have the following sequence of code: > > bool

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

On Apr 21, 10:59 pm, "Tanya M. Lattner" <to... at nondot.org> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > > Hi all, > > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? > > It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to > configure it? This is what gcc/config.log remembered: $ /Users/ggreif/llvm-gcc/gcc/configure