similar to: [LLVMdev] Warnings when compiling llvm+clang (Mac OS X system gcc)

On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM, Filipe Cabecinhas <filcab at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > I want to extend llvm-mc to make it disassemble whole files, instead of > sequences of bytes. > Most of the work to read from a Mach-O file is already done by lldb, but > that is outside llvm's repository and not useful to llvm-mc (as far as I > know). > Is anyone working on

This builder is taking too long to build. (The build stops because of a timeout.) Chip On Aug 30, 2013, at 11:29 AM, llvm.buildmaster at lab.llvm.org wrote: > The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder clang-amd64-openbsd while building llvm. > Full details are available at: > http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-amd64-openbsd/builds/1103 > > Buildbot URL:

Ok, I'll submit a patch to turn that into a report_fatal_error saying you can't start an abbrev with an array or blob. Thanks, Filipe F On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Rafael Espíndola < rafael.espindola at gmail.com> wrote: > The restriction looks reasonable: A record starts with a code. The code > can be encoded as a literal or be part of the abbreviation. > >

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:30 AM, Filipe Cabecinhas <filcab at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Try these scripts to build llvm and llvm-gcc. It's the ones I use and I > managed to get them to work when I saw another build script using those > CFLAGS. > > They compile llvm and stuff using only x86_64, but you can then generate > code for i386 (just use a different

Hi Manuel, I believe you're maintaining Phabricator at reviews.llvm.org <http://reviews.llvm.org/>. Duncan likes to send his patch comments via email, like in the example below. Do you know why don't his replies get imported into the web interface? The reply was sent to "reviews+D24569+public+a5763c0a090df06f at reviews.llvm.org

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Filipe Cabecinhas <filcab at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for proposing this. It seems like it might be an interesting > tool for us too. But this proposal seems a bit hand-wavy, and I think > it's missing some crucial info before we start heading this way. > > At least for the tools you are currently starting to implement, it > would be

On 09/13/2017 04:46 PM, Dinar Temirbulatov via llvm-dev wrote: > Hi Michael, >> I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >> valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. > Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new > intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am > looking

Hi Michael, >Interesting approach but how do you handle more complex offsets, e.g., when the pointer is part of an aggregate? Only one offset does not seem enough to handle generic cases. Yes, correct, this a little bit changed example is not working. #include <x86intrin.h> __m256d vsht_d4_fold(const double* ptr, unsigned long long i) { __m256d foo = (__m256d){ ptr[i], ptr[i+1],

Hi Michael, >I have a case where InstCombine removes a store and your approach would be >valuable for me if the entire access to an aggregate could be restored. Yes, no problem and we could add the aggregate pointer to this new intrinsic and in my particular case I should ignore it, but I am looking now at "speculation_marker" metadata and I am still not sure how to implement it

Hi Hal, >Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our information about memory from that actual load instruction. I updated

On 09/26/2017 08:31 AM, Dinar Temirbulatov wrote: > Hi Hal, >> Are you primarily concerned with being able to widen loads later in the pipeline? Could we attached metadata to the remaining loads indicating that it would be legal to widen them? > no, I don't have any concerns about intrinsic way of implementation, > and intrinsic way looks safer for me since we somehow detach our