similar to: [LLVMdev] SDUse Lists

I need a review of this patch and if it looks sane, someone to apply it to their local sources and run tests in Debug+Checks mode. The patch replaces the intrusive SDUse list with a std::list<> when XDEBUG is active. I believe I've maintained the semantics of the SDUse list but I need a double-check. The patch exposes all kinds of problems in Debug+Checks mode. Right now most of

Just so this doesn't get lost in threads dealing with SelectionDAG issues, I'd like to post this patch for review. It changes the SDUse list from an intrusive list to a std::list<> under XDEBUG. This allows us to use the debugging features of the standard library to track down stubborn bugs. I've used this to diagnose in issue in SelectionDAG in our sources and also in the

I just found a major bug in SelectionDAG. Well, I found it several weeks ago and finally diagnosed it today. One possible fix comes down to holding SDUses about to be processed in a queue. But this would require the SDUse copy constructor to be public. Why is it private and unimplemented right now? What's the assumption that's trying to protect?

SDUse's Prev and Next members implement a use list. Copying them probably wouldn't immediately break anything, but it wouldn't be meaningful. Dan On Feb 24, 2010, at 3:08 PM, David Greene wrote: > I just found a major bug in SelectionDAG. Well, I found it several weeks ago > and finally diagnosed it today. > > One possible fix comes down to holding SDUses about to be

Do you have a fix for the blackfin codegen? That would be a great way to motivate this patch. Otherwise, at a glance, it appears you fixed the issues I raised, so this is fine, if it catches real bugs. Dan On Mar 1, 2010, at 10:02 AM, David Greene wrote: > Just so this doesn't get lost in threads dealing with SelectionDAG > issues, I'd like to post this patch for review. It

On Wednesday 24 February 2010 18:47:19 Dan Gohman wrote: > SDUse's Prev and Next members implement a use list. Copying them > probably wouldn't immediately break anything, but it wouldn't be > meaningful. I understand that the copied SDUse wouldn't be represented in the list, so I can understand the general reasons for making the copy constructor private. In this case,

Thanks for noticing this, Geoff. I just landed r268050 which add a cmake option for this (and unifies XDEBUG and EXPENSIVE_CHECKS). This might make it easier to setup some build bots. Thank you, Filipe On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 8:40 PM, Geoff Berry via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Bugs filed: > 27488 <https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=27488> librarie

Yeah, they are just triggered by lit check tests. I’ll file some bugs today, though it looks like Quentin may have already filed bugs for some of these. -- Geoff Berry Employee of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project From: Daniel Berlin [mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org] Sent: Friday,

Hi All, Are there any bots that do any testing with clang/llvm built with XDEBUG (i.e. expensive checking)? I'm seeing 36 lit tests that currently hit asserts that are checked when XDEBUG is enabled. The checks that I'm hitting are: - DominatorTree::verifyDomTree() - DAGTypeLegalizer::PerformExpensiveChecks() - SelectionDAG checkForCyclesHelper Are these known issues or should I file

On Mar 2, 2010, at 8:58 AM, David Greene wrote: > On Monday 01 March 2010 20:34:07 Dan Gohman wrote: >> Do you have a fix for the blackfin codegen? That would be a great >> way to motivate this patch. > > I'm not following you. Why does a fix for a bug have anything to do > with a patch that catches bugs? It helps people understand what's being checked. On an

On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:00 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Monday 15 February 2010 11:54:25 Óscar Fuentes wrote: >>> David Greene <dag at cray.com> writes: >>>> Sorry, I botched a commit and broke the build. I've just committed a >>>> fix. >>>> >>>> So expect

2014/1/15 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>: > Emilien, > > just saw your commit in Buildbot for testing some Windows changes. That's great that someone is working on this again! > We have had a few users ask for updates to the 2.6.5+ version of NUT for Windows. I am just fixing some bugs and implementing some minor windows-specific features. > The problem is that

I have a PHP box which was running NagiosQL on PHP4, and all of a sudden it stopped serving PHP pages. I went to http://boxIP/nagiosQL/testQL.php (that application's test page) and got the following error "PHP without mysql support, please install mysql module to php!" Not knowing what was broken, I attempted a "yum install php-*", but got the following message: --->

On Jan 15, 2014, at 10:18 AM, Emilien KIA wrote: > 2014/1/15 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>: >> Emilien, >> >> just saw your commit in Buildbot for testing some Windows changes. That's great that someone is working on this again! >> We have had a few users ask for updates to the 2.6.5+ version of NUT for Windows. > > I am just fixing some bugs

sendmail -- Version 8.14.2 Compiled with: DNSMAP LOG MAP_REGEX MATCHGECOS MILTER MIME7TO8 MIME8TO7 NAMED_BIND NETINET NETINET6 NETUNIX NEWDB NIS PIPELINING SASLv2 SCANF STARTTLS TCPWRAPPERS USERDB XDEBUG dovecot-1.0.7 Secure and compact IMAP and POP3 servers dovecot-sieve-1.0.2 A sieve plugin for the Dovecot LDA called 'deliver' With focus on the

On Monday 15 February 2010 14:59:19 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 15, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Chris Lattner wrote: > > On Feb 15, 2010, at 10:00 AM, David Greene wrote: > >> On Monday 15 February 2010 11:54:25 Óscar Fuentes wrote: > >>> David Greene <dag at cray.com> writes: > >>>> Sorry, I botched a commit and broke the build. I've just committed

On Feb 25, 2010, at 2:24 PM, David Greene wrote: > On Thursday 25 February 2010 16:17:10 David Greene wrote: >> On Thursday 25 February 2010 16:07:59 Chris Lattner wrote: >>> On Feb 25, 2010, at 12:01 PM, David Greene wrote: >>>> I am seeing a whole lot of failures in the tests on trunk. From >>>> discussions with Chris and others, I should not be seeing

On Monday 15 February 2010 15:08:22 Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:04 PM, David Greene wrote: > >> FWIW, this is because you broke the encoding of an instruction in your > >> patch. This is incorrect: > >> > >> +def MOVNTDQ_64mr : PSI<0xE7, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins f128mem:$dst, > >> VR128:$src), +

On Feb 15, 2010, at 1:04 PM, David Greene wrote: >> FWIW, this is because you broke the encoding of an instruction in your >> patch. This is incorrect: >> >> +def MOVNTDQ_64mr : PSI<0xE7, MRMDestMem, (outs), (ins f128mem:$dst, >> VR128:$src), + "movntdq\t{$src, $dst|$dst, $src}", >> + [(alignednontemporalstore

I have a set of changes that enhances rematerialization to handle more kinds of loads, specifically loads with multiple address registers. This is a big win for some codes on x86. I plan to send these up ASAP but I want to solicit a bit of guidance first. The change requires that live interval analysis be able to determine whether and instruction is a load and whether an instruction writes to