similar to: [LLVMdev] Naming conventions in LLVM code

I’d like to discuss revising the LLVM coding conventions to change the naming of variables to start with a lowercase letter. This should not be a discussion on the pain of such a transition, or how to get from here to there, but rather, if there is a better place to be. My arguments for the change are: 1. No other popular C++ coding style uses capitalized variable names. For instance here

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:19 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Nick Kledzik <kledzik at apple.com> wrote: > >> I’d like to discuss revising the LLVM coding conventions to change the >> naming of variables to start with a lowercase letter. >> > > Almost all of your negatives of the current conventions

Hi everyone, I have a code style question: should full test programs (.c,.cpp files) use the documented CamelCase from http://llvm.org/docs/CodingStandards.html#name-types-functions-variables-and-enumerators-properly or instead use lower_with_underscores as I've been told the .ll lit test files should use? I see both in existing files, and in particular for projects/compiler-rt I cannot

> -----Original Message----- > From: David Greene [mailto:dag at cray.com] > Sent: Friday, February 22, 2019 2:40 PM > To: Robinson, Paul > Cc: asb at lowrisc.org; clattner at nondot.org; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; > nd at arm.com > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM > codebase > > via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

I''m creating a new rails app. The application is named BigIdea. Should I create this project using: 1. rails bigidea or 2. rails big_idea I know both will work, but just want to get off to the right start using the proper rails naming convention. Thanks! Brian -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this

I had posted something in the code review but Chris suggested doing it here instead, which makes sense. Also I have to remember that the discussion is specifically about spelling variables, not changing any other spelling conventions. Looking at names of "variables" there's reasonable support for making them visually more distinct from other kinds of names. Regarding making

Hello Cameron, thanks a lot for your fast answer, which just makes me curious if making ARM tailcalls on par with x86 in the future is on some of the development plans already? If not, then what do you think is the complexity of such work? Thanks! Karel On 06/17/11 10:41 PM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > They work pretty well now, at least on Thumb2 / Darwin. It is still fairly conservative

I don't know if GuaranteedTailCallOpt is in anyone's plans. It might be a good idea to implement some time. I am not sure what GHC's exact needs are, though. Cameron On Jun 17, 2011, at 1:49 PM, Karel Gardas wrote: > > Hello Cameron, > > thanks a lot for your fast answer, which just makes me curious if making ARM tailcalls on par with x86 in the future is on some of

Martin, Thank you for discussing this amongst R-core and for detailing the R-core discussion here. Some specific examples where having underscores available would have been useful. 1. My primerTree package (2013) was originally primer_tree, but I had to change the name to camelCase to comply with the check requirements. Using camelCase in the package name makes reading code jarring, as the

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 4:14 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > 1. Initialisms. It's common in Clang code (also in LLVM?) to use >> initialisms as variable names. This doesn't really seem to work for names >> that start with a lower case letter. >> > > I think wee at least need a good answer to this. > As I really suspect this is

On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:31 AM, Cameron Zwarich wrote: > Promoting the return value is unsafe for bool returns on x86-64, which in the latest revision of the ABI only guarantees that the top 7 bits of the 8-bit register are 0. My comment is a bit off, because the question of what type to make the return value is somewhat orthogonal to the question of which zext assert we should add. Cameron

On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:31 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > That's exactly the right place. Really? You don't want the expansion to be optimized? You want to specify a machine model for the pseudo's as if they're real instructions? You don't want to schedule or register allocate the real instructions? -Andy > On Feb 16, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Reed

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:20 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > >> On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: >> >>> How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that

On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith at synopsys.com> wrote: > Sorry, Dead Store Elimination. Hmm... does tweaking the value of BlockScanLimit in MemoryDependenceAnalysis.cpp help? -Eli > > > > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of Michael Smith > Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:20 PM

Dear all, Given the following vector: > (z <- c('R project', 'hello world', 'something Else')) [1] "R project" "hello world" "something Else" I know how to obtain all capitals or all lower case letters: > tolower(z) [1] "r project" "hello world" "something else" > toupper(z) [1] "R

It looks like this problem only exists on nested loops, ideas? On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 11:44 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > Is it not a good idea to try and extract loops that have multiple exits? > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Ryan Taylor <ryta1203 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am trying to use ExtractLoop() but I am getting segFaults:

The allocator you are building, is it the Hack's and Goos's polynomial time algorithm? On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > There is nothing that currently handles this properly, as far as I know. If you have a phi > > c = phi(a, b) > > where a, b and c are all assigned distinct stack slots, then copies must be inserted in

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:45 PM, Jakob Stoklund Olesen <stoklund at 2pi.dk> wrote: > On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > >> I'll try doing that. Did you ever add a way to update LiveIntervals quickly after splitting an edge or will that have to finally be added? I can skip the critical edge splitting for now. > > That

Dead Code Elimination. I’m going to try re-working it following some of the insights Don Quixote provided. From: Cameron Zwarich [mailto:zwarich at apple.com] Sent: Monday, November 21, 2011 12:17 PM To: Michael Smith Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Optimization of array access Where does the -time-passes option say the time is going? Sent from my iPhone On Nov 21, 2011, at

On Feb 8, 2013, at 4:03 PM, Cameron Zwarich <zwarich at apple.com> wrote: > How much of the work is done here? I'd be happy to do the phi elimination part, since I basically did that for StrongPhiElimination (RIP). Any help would be appreciated. I did a bit of the easy stuff in 2-addr, it has a LIS = getAnalysisIfAvailable<LiveIntervals>() member that it sometimes updates. It