Displaying 20 results from an estimated 400 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities"
2010 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
> 3. The front-end, recognizing that scribbling on an instance's vtbl
> pointer has undefined results, eliminated the loads of the vtbl
> pointer and replaced them with @classvtbl.TestVirtual. This would
> allow devirtualization within a function at least, but (I think) would
> do less to allow analysis to spot
2010 Oct 11
2
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>> 3. The front-end, recognizing that scribbling on an instance's vtbl
>> pointer has undefined results, eliminated the loads of the vtbl
>> pointer and replaced them with @classvtbl.TestVirtual. This would
>> allow
2010 Oct 11
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>>> 3. The front-end, recognizing that scribbling on an instance's vtbl
>>> pointer has undefined results, eliminated the loads of the vtbl
>>> pointer and replaced
2010 Oct 11
3
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:55 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 12:30 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 9:12 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>
> 3. The front-end, recognizing that scribbling on an instance's vtbl
>
>
2003 May 05
1
R-1.7.0: Rproxy.dll loadlibrary/freelibrary error (PR#2914)
Full_Name: Venkatesh Mysore
Version: R-1.7.0
OS: WindowsXP
Submission from: (NULL) (216.165.110.10)
While accessing Rproxy.dll repeatedly (using the code from the (D)COM example in
the R website) causes a failure in the 24th iteration. R-1.6.2 does NOT give
this error. This seems to be a memory management error, that might be linked to
the huge leakage difference between R-1.7.0 and R-1.6.2
2006 Oct 10
1
[LLVMdev] llvmdev: Windows support
Hello, everyone!
My name is Žiga Osolin and I am one of administrators of baadengine
project (www.baadengine.org). It is an open source, BSD-licenced, game
engine. We are very interested in llvm to provide us runtime code
generation (basically, wrappers to easily call scripts from C++ and
vica-versa, via vtbl (we replace vtbl for scripted types)) and also to
allow our VM to run on llvm. Our
2010 Oct 12
5
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not
>> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and
>> llvm.invariant.end calls for it.
>
> Some of us were talking about this apropos your
2010 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not
> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and
> llvm.invariant.end calls for it.
Some of us were talking about this apropos your earlier post.
@llvm.invariant.start/end aren't appropriate, because the memory *isn't*
invariant; the
2015 Jul 26
1
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Clang devirtualization proposal
On Sat, Jul 25, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
> Hi Piotr,
>
> Thanks for posting this! First, a question. When you say, regarding i8*
> @llvm.invariant.group.barrier(i8*):
>
> "Required to handle destructors, placement new and std::launder. Call of
> this function will be put on the end of each of this functions"
>
> I
2010 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:00 AM, Kenneth Uildriks <kennethuil at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 11:10 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>>> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not
>>> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start
2014 May 27
1
[PATCH V3] nvc0: implement clear_buffer
v2:
- change patch name to "nvc0: implement clear_buffer"
- rename nvc0_clear_buffer_rgb32 -> nvc0_clear_buffer_cpu and make it work for
all formats
- remove superfluous fenciing in nvc0_clear_buffer_cpu
- coding style fixes
v3:
- more coding style fixes
- nvc0_clear_buffer() - don't mark the framebuffer dirty for if we don't touch
the GPU
Signed-off-by: Tobias
2014 May 26
1
[PATCH V2] nvc0: implement clear_buffer
v2: change patch according to Ilia Mirkins review
---
src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nvc0/nvc0_surface.c | 151 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 151 insertions(+)
diff --git a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nvc0/nvc0_surface.c b/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nvc0/nvc0_surface.c
index 6b7c30c..242924a 100644
--- a/src/gallium/drivers/nouveau/nvc0/nvc0_surface.c
+++
2015 Jul 25
0
[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] Clang devirtualization proposal
Hi Piotr,
Thanks for posting this! First, a question. When you say, regarding i8* @llvm.invariant.group.barrier(i8*):
"Required to handle destructors, placement new and std::launder. Call of this function will be put on the end of each of this functions"
I completely understand placement new and std::launder. I don't understand destructors, could you explain?
Also, am I correct
2010 Oct 12
2
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
John McCall wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not
>> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and
>> llvm.invariant.end calls for it.
>
> Some of us were talking about this apropos your earlier post.
> @llvm.invariant.start/end aren't
2010 Dec 10
0
Wine release 1.3.9
The Wine development release 1.3.9 is now available.
What's new in this release (see below for details):
- Beginnings of support for ActiveX in built-in browser.
- Icons on Internet shortcut menu entries.
- Standardization of code implementing COM interfaces.
- New scheme for auto-generated DLL registrations.
- OpenCL library wrapper.
- Translation updates.
- Various bug fixes.
2010 Oct 12
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Oct 11, 2010, at 10:06 PM, Nick Lewycky wrote:
> John McCall wrote:
>> On Oct 11, 2010, at 2:01 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>>> A better way for a front-end to declare that vtbl-ptr-hacking is not
>>> expected and not supported is for it to emit llvm.invariant.start and
>>> llvm.invariant.end calls for it.
>>
>> Some of us were talking about
2010 Dec 24
0
Wine release 1.3.10
The Wine development release 1.3.10 is now available.
What's new in this release (see below for details):
- Support for notification balloons in system tray.
- Obsolete AudioIO sound driver removed.
- More work on ActiveX support.
- Various MSI fixes.
- Preloader now used for 64-bit too.
- Translation updates.
- Various bug fixes.
The source is available from the following
2011 Jan 07
0
Wine release 1.3.11
The Wine development release 1.3.11 is now available.
What's new in this release (see below for details):
- PO files now used for translations.
- Various JavaScript improvements.
- Some fixes to the Wine debugger.
- Translation updates.
- Various bug fixes.
The source is available from the following locations:
2010 Oct 14
2
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:49 PM, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2010, at 4:35 AM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 12:45 AM, Nick Lewycky <nicholas at mxc.ca> wrote:
>>> Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You're right, I hadn't thought this through. The whole point of making
2010 Oct 14
0
[LLVMdev] Missed devirtualization opportunities
On Oct 13, 2010, at 5:09 PM, Kenneth Uildriks wrote:
> But I believe the language does allow "undefined behavior" if there's
> a use of pT when the pointed-to object isn't actually of type T. It's
> an invalid use in that case, right?
Yes, but not for an arbitrary pointer which aliases pT. That's why it's
a problem that llm.invariant is specified in terms