similar to: [LLVMdev] Beer

Great, Monday works fine for me. We will discuss details once I will be in SF. Regards -- Jakub Staszak On Oct 5, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Mark Lacey wrote: > Hi Jakub, > > I live and work in SF. I might be interested in a quick beer or two in the early evening on the 11th. It's the only night I'm available from Friday through Tuesday. I work near the Financial District, so if you

Hi all, Apple's LLVM Source Tools and Program Analysis teams are now looking for exceptional interns for summer 2015! These are paid internships based onsite at Apple's main campus in Cupertino, California, USA. Internships last 12 weeks, with internships starting in May or later (start dates are flexible). During the internship, interns will work directly with members of Apple's

Hi Everyone, Apple's Clang, libc++, and Program Analysis teams are now looking for interns for 2021! Our teams contribute to Clang, libc++, Clang Static Analyzer, as well as dynamic analysis tools (such as Address Sanitizer and Thread Sanitizer). We are looking for interns to work closely with members of the engineering team as well as the open source communities to solve challenging

Hi Ted, When is the closing date for this? So I can send to interested friends. Regards, Vanush On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > Apple's LLVM Source Tools and Program Analysis teams are now looking for > exceptional interns for summer 2015! > > These are paid internships based onsite at Apple's main campus

Hi all, Apple's compiler teams (covering the frontend to the backend) are now looking for exceptional interns for summer 2012. These are paid internships based onsite at Apple's main campus in Cupertino, California, USA. Internships last ~3 months, with internships starting as early as next May. During the internship, interns will work directly with members of Apple's compiler team

Hi all, Apple's compiler and language runtime teams (covering the Clang frontend, LLVM backend, and the Objective-C runtime) are now looking for exceptional interns for summer 2013! These are paid internships based onsite at Apple's main campus in Cupertino, California, USA. Internships last ~3 months, with internships starting as early as next May. During the internship, interns will

Hello, This simple patch fixes PR9112: Index: lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp =================================================================== --- lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (revision 125281) +++ lib/Analysis/ValueTracking.cpp (working copy) @@ -593,6 +593,8 @@ // Otherwise take the unions of the known bit sets of the operands, // taking conservative care to avoid

I think you might be interested in ExtractCodeRegion() function. - Jakub On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jakub Staszak <kubastaszak at gmail.com> wrote: > I think you might be interested in ExtractCodeRegion() function. > > - Jakub > > On Sat, Feb 5, 2011 at 7:40 AM, neda 8664 <neda8664 at gmail.com> wrote: >> i need split a sequential program to multithread. the

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

Hello, Fixed patch attached. Can anyone test it? Regards -- Jakub Staszak -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr5373.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5846 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20100811/8c0c364b/attachment.obj> -------------- next part -------------- On Aug 6, 2010, at

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:27 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli

On Aug 21, 2009, at 10:02 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli

On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>>

On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 4:53 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 8:46 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:29 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at

Hello, Simply removing that "return true" causes the code to search blocks outside of loops for side effects. That's not what the code is supposed to do. Dan On Nov 27, 2009, at 3:01 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hi, > > Because of this "return true" not every block was visited and only one ExitBB was found (instead of two). Thus, loop was optimized as a trivial

Hello, Yeah, sorry, you are right. My new idea is that only one ExitBB is found because Header ("for.body") is already marked as visited. I'm pretty sure that someone had a good reason to do this that way, but I can't find it out :) Dan, can you look at this patch? Thanks -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name:

On Aug 6, 2010, at 11:47 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > The last bit here > > + if (LoopExitBB) { > + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() > + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, > + // just quit then. > + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) > + return false; > +

The last bit here + if (LoopExitBB) { + // It is possible that for both successors isTrivialLoopExitBlock() + // returns different exit blocks. It means that the loop isn't trivial, + // just quit then. + if (LoopExitBB != LoopExitBB2) + return false; + } else if (Val) { + // if LoopExitBB == LoopExitBB2 pick the first one (true). +

On Aug 21, 2009, at 7:31 PM, Eli Friedman wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Jakub Staszak<kuba at gcc.gnu.org> > wrote: >> Hello, >> >> This patch fixes PR4174. Two test-cases included: original one from >> bugzilla >> and a little bit complicated made be myself. > > I think you want isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute rather than >