similar to: [LLVMdev] What's the BasicInliner for?

Hi, the attached patch splits the loop unroll pass into a LoopUnroll superclass that implements the unrolling mechanism, and a SimpleLoopUnroll subclass implementing the current policy. This split is modeled after the split between Inliner and SimpleInliner. The superclass currently still finds out the TripCount and TripMultiple, and passes those, together with the Loop in question, to a policy

Hi all, I've attached two patches. The first, pass-comments.diff adds or improves the file comments for a number of passes. This patch is slightly interesting. The second, pass-doc.diff is mostly a yank-put job and updates Passes.html as follows. I've removed the following passes from the documentation: Lower GC intrinsics, for GCless code generators (-lowergc) Correlated Expression

Hi Nicolas (at least, I suspect your signing of your mail with "Anton" was not intentional :-p), > I assume that's the same as the online demo's "Show LLVM C++ API code" > option (http://llvm.org/demo/)? I've tried that with a structure containing > four floating-point components but it also appears to add them individually > using extract/insert. Maybe

Hi all, I was looking at the StructRetPromotion pass this morning and noticed it doesn't look at a function's linkage at all. Since it changes the signature of the function, I would say it should only change internal functions, like ArgumentPromotion does for example. Is there some implicit check I'm missing, or should an explicit check really be added? Gr. Matthijs --------------

Hi Dan, > in the AMD 5.5 What's that? Got a link? Google only finds some kind of golf cart powered by the "Advanced Motors & Drivers 5.5" engine :-) Gr. Matthijs -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL:

Hi, I was evaluating all transformation passes and noticed a few things. In particular, I found three passes in the documentation that I can't seem to find any code for. Where these removed? Lower GC intrinsics, for GCless code generators (-lowergc) Correlated Expression Elimination (-cee) Lower select instructions to branches (-lowerselect) Additionally, I found the following passes for

Hi Damien, I think the problem is that when the passmanager sees an Alias Analysis available, it will use that, but when none is available, it will always run the default implementation (BasicAA), regardless of any alias analysis's run before. This means you should insert Andersen's before any pass that needs it. I suspect (not sure though) that the passmanager will not rerun

Hello, I trying TSAN on Darwin on LLVM itself (sanitizing multi-threaded ThinLTO link). However I see two main issues on my debug build: 1) Statistics: the pre/post increment is not safe, it seems to be acknowledge in the code itself: // FIXME: This function and all those that follow carefully use an // atomic operation to update the value safely in the presence of // concurrent

On 27.09.2017 15:44, Stephan Bosch wrote: > Op 9/27/2017 om 2:36 PM schreef Matthijs Kooijman: >> Hey folks, >> >> apologies for the useless subject on my original mail, forgot to update >> it. >> >> Two more bits of info. Here's the log output related to this crash: >> >> dovecot: imap-login: Login: user=<2014>, method=PLAIN,

Op 9/27/2017 om 2:36 PM schreef Matthijs Kooijman: > Hey folks, > > apologies for the useless subject on my original mail, forgot to update > it. > > Two more bits of info. Here's the log output related to this crash: > > dovecot: imap-login: Login: user=<2014>, method=PLAIN, rip=217.122.126.195, lip=10.42.0.13, mpid=10569, TLS, session=<IsP37ypaFYHZen7D>

On Jul 16, 2008, at 9:58 AM, Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi all, > > once more with the patch inline for easy review. I did not include the > argpromotion pass here, since it's not the main topic of this post. Hi Matthijs, I'd prefer to not turn this into a template. Why not just define a version that takes an array of uint64_t's or something like that? -Chris

Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi, > > after working with llvm for a while, I'm still a little confused with the > meaning of the 'byval' attribute. From the langref: > > "This indicates that the pointer parameter should really be passed by value to > the function. The attribute implies that a hidden copy of the pointee is made > between the caller and the

Hi Matthijs, Yes, I've turned off the link-time optimizations (otherwise it just propagates my constant vectors and immediate prints the result). :-) Here's essentially what I try to generate: void add(float z[4], float x[4], float y[4]) { z[0] = x[0] + y[0]; z[1] = x[1] + y[1]; z[2] = x[2] + y[2]; z[3] = x[3] + y[3]; } And here's part of the output from the online

I think this error is due to these changes: Doing diffs in .: --- ./gsyslimits.h.~1~ 2006-11-26 12:31:50.000000000 -0800 +++ ./gsyslimits.h 2007-04-02 12:37:38.000000000 -0700 @@ -4,5 +4,3 @@ instead of this text. */ #define _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H /* tell gcc's limits.h to recurse */ -#include_next <limits.h> -#undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H --- ./limitx.h.~1~ 2006-11-26

llvm does not automatically vectorize your scalar code (as least for now). You have to write gcc generic vector code or use vector builtins. Evan On May 8, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi Matthijs, > > Yes, I've turned off the link-time optimizations (otherwise it just > propagates my constant vectors and immediate prints the result). :-) > > Here's

Hi, Matthijs Tanya addressed some of these issues on her response to my patch. You can see there some comments. Thanks about the ubuntu 'dash' issue. Never minded which shell I was using here... it's very like bash from user viewpoint. I think it's another reason to have the variable on the command line. Alexandre Em Qua, 2008-05-07 às 18:26 +0200, Matthijs Kooijman escreveu:

Hi all, I'm having some trouble building llvm-gcc as of today, with and without bootstrap. The error I get is: /home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/xgcc -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/./gcc/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ -B/home/kooijman/src/llvm-gcc/obj/../install/i686-pc-linux-gnu/lib/ -isystem

Thanks a lot for your help Matthijs! :) basically this does the job quite nicely I think: for (llvm::GlobalVariable::use_iterator U = gv->use_begin(); U != gv->use_end(); ++U) { llvm::Instruction *I = llvm::cast<llvm::Instruction>(U); I->replaceAllUsesWith(constPtr); I->eraseFromParent(); } Cheers, Ralf Matthijs Kooijman wrote: > Hi Ralf, > > >> I

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Matthijs Kooijman <matthijs at stdin.nl> wrote: > Hi all, > > I've been discussing parameter attributes and their impact on first-class > struct parameters. Duncan and I came to the conclusion that the only attribute > that could be applied to structs currently, is the inreg attribute. However, > since there is no support anywhere for

Hi all, about a month ago, I've started working on my master's thesis. Since I want to focus on just that work, I've stopped my LLVM work for now. It is unclear whether I will continue my work after graduation, but it seems unlikely. I'll still keep track of LLVM from a personal interest (mostly watching the IRC channel), but I won't have the time to track any mailing lists.