similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVMBuilder/LLVMFoldingBuilder -> IRBuilder

Duncan Sands wrote: >> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and >> rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd >> argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding >> functionality for debugging purposes. >> > > this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how

Dominic Hamon wrote: > Duncan Sands wrote: >>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, >>> I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old >>> non-folding functionality for debugging purposes. >>> >> >> this plan

Hi Dominic, +//===-- llvm/Support/IRBuilder.h - Builder for LLVM Instrs -----*- C++ -*-===// is this line the right length? It seems shorter than the similar lines below like this one: +//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===// + GetElementPtrInst *CreateStructGEP(Value *Ptr, unsigned Idx, + const char *Name =

Hi, > Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder and > rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the case, I'd > argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the old non-folding > functionality for debugging purposes. this plan sounds good to me. However it's not clear to me how useful a debug flag would really be. Ciao, Duncan.

Hello llvm dev peeps I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the methods in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I thought about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become virtual. However, the base class methods return specific types while the Folding builder, for

On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > Hello llvm dev peeps > > I would like to use an LLVMBuilder pointer as a base pointer to > reference either an LLVMBuilder or an LLVMFoldingBuilder. As the > methods > in the Folding builder have the same names as the base class, I > thought > about submitting a patch whereby the base class methods would become >

Duncan Sands wrote: > + GetElementPtrInst *CreateStructGEP(Value *Ptr, unsigned Idx, > + const char *Name = "") { > + llvm::Value *Idxs[] = { > + ConstantInt::get(llvm::Type::Int32Ty, 0), > + ConstantInt::get(llvm::Type::Int32Ty, Idx) > + }; > + return Insert(GetElementPtrInst::Create(Ptr, Idxs, Idxs+2, Name));

On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > Dominic Hamon wrote: >> Duncan Sands wrote: >>>> Another option that was discussed in #llvm is to nuke LLVMBuilder >>>> and rename LLVMFoldingBuilder to LLVMBuilder. If this was the >>>> case, I'd argue for a flag in the Builder that could retain the >>>> old non-folding

Am Donnerstag, den 03.04.2008, 19:29 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Apr 2, 2008, at 9:54 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > > > Would it be reasonable for me to submit a patch whereby [...] the > > LLVMFoldingBuilder methods become virtual overrides of the base > > class methods? > > No, please don't do this. The idea of llvmbuilder is that it is a >

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> No, please don't do this. The idea of llvmbuilder is that it is a >> "free" wrapper around the other existing API calls. Making the >> methods virtual would make them much more expensive. > > Wouldn't the class of the objects be known at compile time in most > cases? This is essentially just a case of

In general, the C++ compiler does NOT know the type of the leaf class when performing a virtual method invocation. In particular, a parameter (including "this") alleging to be a Foo* (Foo being some class) may actually be any subclass of Foo, so unless the compiler can trace the value flow all the way from the instantiation, it can't tell. The necessary tracing is (a) hard, (b)

Am Freitag, den 04.04.2008, 11:19 -0700 schrieb Chris Lattner: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > >> No, please don't do this. The idea of llvmbuilder is that it is a > >> "free" wrapper around the other existing API calls. Making the > >> methods virtual would make them much more expensive. > > > > Wouldn't the class of

> Please find _attached_ the update patches with all requested changes. Applied - thanks! Ciao, Duncan.

On Apr 12, 2008, at 11:28 PM, Duncan Sands wrote: >> Please find _attached_ the update patches with all requested changes. > > Applied - thanks! > In the future, can all major API changes please be checked in after giving some warning to the community? For example, send a separate email title "API Change" and then give some sort of warning as to when it will go in

I used &Idx[0]. In future, please avoid tabs in your patch. I applied your patch. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20071217/056403.html - Devang On Dec 17, 2007, at 2:57 AM, Richard Pennington wrote: > Devang Patel wrote: >> On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: >>> I got the current version of LLVM via svn yesterday and

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, Joachim Durchholz wrote: >> Please verify that this actually happens in practice with llvm-gcc and >> gcc. > > If that's already the case (which I'll gladly believe), where does the > performance overhead for virtual functions come from? > (Just curious.) I don't understand what you're asking. Please rephrase. -Chris --

On Apr 4, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Joachim Durchholz wrote: > > I'm not sure how hard (a) really is. It's being done in other > imperative > OO languages, and quite successful there (the SmartEiffel folks have > reported they can eliminate the vtable lookup in about 90% of call > sites, Are those the folks that don't do separate compilation or dynamic libraries? :-)

On Apr 11, 2008, at 02:19, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Apr 10, 2008, at 7:05 AM, Dominic Hamon wrote: > >> And there were. updated patches attached. > > Looking good. One big comment: Please attach patches to email > instead of including them inline. Thunderbird and Mail are once again conspiring against Chris. The fix is to make Thunderbird attach attachments instead of

Am Freitag, den 04.04.2008, 15:19 -0400 schrieb Jonathan S. Shapiro: > In general, the C++ compiler does NOT know the type of the leaf class > when performing a virtual method invocation. In particular, a parameter > (including "this") alleging to be a Foo* (Foo being some class) may > actually be any subclass of Foo, so unless the compiler can trace the > value flow all

Devang Patel wrote: > On Dec 15, 2007, at 12:15 PM, Richard Pennington wrote: > >> I got the current version of LLVM via svn yesterday and modified my >> code to >> use the LLVMFoldingBuilder. Very nice! >> >> My question is this: I noticed that the folding builder doesn't fold >> some >> operations, e.g. casts. Is there some reason why? If