similar to: [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

> 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

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

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

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 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

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

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? Whenever I have had problems building llvm-gcc, I usually have to delete my install and obj dir, make clean llvm, and start over from the top. Its a pain, but it works usually. -Tanya > >

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

I did this short experiment: ggreif at my [!297] cd /home/ggreif/llvm ggreif at my [!298] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep bytecode | wc -l 143 I guess these are a quick prey for perl's in-place replace. But wait! There are more: ggreif at my [!299] find . -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep -i bytecode | wc -l 291 probably all of the rest is "Bytecode"

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 > > >>>

I do not consider PR1546 closed just yet. What I mentioned in the PR was only two of ca. 140 Solaris failures. Most of them complain that llc cannot choose between C and MSIL output formats. The below prototypical patch corrects this type of failure. Is this the right way of handling it? Why does llc only fail on Solaris and not on Darwin? After I understood this problem I am happy to commit

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

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,

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 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

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, > >>> >

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

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: