similar to: [LLVMdev] llvm-diff

On Feb 28, 2011, at 3:36 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > I'm considering adding debug metadata logic to llvm-diff, but it looks > like some heavy refactoring will be needed to do so. Who's the owner > of it? Me. > There is too much logic in DifferenceEngine, classes being declared in > the cpp file, sub-classes of DifferenceEngine that could be used by > the metadata diff,

On 24 August 2010 00:19, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > Note that llvm-diff is meant solely as a tool for debugging IR;  pretty much all > details of the output, from formatting to actual information, is subject to change. Hi John, This is fine, I'll not use it on any production system nor rely on its output for anything, it's also mainly for IR debugging. I

On 28 February 2011 18:00, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: > I have no objections to any of that. Thanks! Will try something this week... Btw, I want to use a graph data structure (like Boost's) to put the metadata in and be able to assert A == B and recurse the graph to make sure everything is equals in A to B, but avoiding re-reading cycles (recursive types).

On Aug 24, 2010, at 1:57 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 24 August 2010 00:19, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> Note that llvm-diff is meant solely as a tool for debugging IR; pretty much all >> details of the output, from formatting to actual information, is subject to change. > > This is fine, I'll not use it on any production system nor rely on its

Hi John, I believe my refactoring went well. I've changed the source considerably to spread out the classes a bit so I can re-use the log builder and consumer. I'll also put the priority queue and the graph I just did on separate headers (as they are templates). I ran all tests and they pass, but I'm not sure how much llvm-diff relies on the check-all tests and how much you have your

I was wondering about IR comparison and I saw llvm-diff tool, why is it not installed by default when I make install? -- cheers, --renato http://systemcall.org/ Reclaim your digital rights, eliminate DRM, learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm

Hi all, Does anyone know of a good solution to the following? I'm trying to find a good way to stably associate distinct ID numbers with different BB in a module. As long as the module's IR hasn't changed in any way whatsoever, I'd like to be guaranteed to always generate the same ID <--> BB mapping. Or if the mapping is ambiguous, because two or more mappings between

Before I start down this road, has anyone done a breadcrumbs implementation they''d be happy to share? Thanks Chris T

On Mar 8, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > I believe my refactoring went well. I've changed the source > considerably to spread out the classes a bit so I can re-use the log > builder and consumer. I'll also put the priority queue and the graph I > just did on separate headers (as they are templates). Excellent. > I ran all tests and they pass, but I'm not sure

On Feb 28, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > On 28 February 2011 18:00, John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote: >> I have no objections to any of that. > > Thanks! Will try something this week... > > Btw, I want to use a graph data structure (like Boost's) to put the > metadata in and be able to assert A == B and recurse the graph to make > sure

On Aug 23, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Renato Golin wrote: > I was wondering about IR comparison and I saw llvm-diff tool, why is > it not installed by default when I make install? Probably because I missed some vital way of plugging into the build system. Note that llvm-diff is meant solely as a tool for debugging IR; pretty much all details of the output, from formatting to actual information, is

Hi all, After updating llvm+clang to r174701 by issuing make -j8 happiness The build fails with: ... make[2]: Entering directory `/local/csaba/LLVM/build-release/tools/llvm-diff' llvm[2]: Compiling DiffConsumer.cpp for Release+Asserts build llvm[2]: Linking Release+Asserts executable lli (without symbols) llvm[2]: Compiling CrashDebugger.cpp for Release+Asserts build

On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > I found next code when switch instruction differs: > > Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r") << CaseValue; > > Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found > that it invokes DiffConsumer::printValue method for CaseValue. And here > I found that CaseValue itself will

ping. -Stepan. Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: > Hi, > > Please find the attached patch for review. > > -Stepan. > > John McCall wrote: >> On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >>> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >>> >>> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >>>

Hi all. I found next code when switch instruction differs: Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r") << CaseValue; Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found that it invokes DiffConsumer::printValue method for CaseValue. And here I found that CaseValue itself will never printed. On first look how DiffConsumer::printValue works it seems that for

Hi, Please find the attached patch for review. -Stepan. John McCall wrote: > On Oct 28, 2011, at 2:00 AM, Stepan Dyatkovskiy wrote: >> I found next code when switch instruction differs: >> >> Engine.logf("right switch has extra case %r")<< CaseValue; >> >> Where CaseValue is a ConstantInt object. Looking how logf works I found >> that it

Here's a suggestion - can we make the "union patch" (the inverse of the patch that removed unions) as a downloadable file so that people who are interested in finishing the work can do so? On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Renato Golin <rengolin at systemcall.org>wrote: > On 7 September 2010 15:36, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > wrote: > >

On Apr 12, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > If you want an automated method, then using the source code re-writer interfaces in clang is probably a reasonable starting place. Just modifying the source code manually is probably easier, though, to be honest. > > As a moderate caveat to all of this, there are some bits of code out there that use these builtins that are very tightly

Hi all, Is anyone using any flavour of Unix to develop LLVM? I suppose the Apple guys are using Mac, right? ;) I've seen some docs on the website to set-up Visual Studio but I haven't seen anything related to cross-platform IDEs (such as Eclipse) and how to attach the tests to them. So far I'm not doing any modifications to the LLVM and my project is still too small to become a

> Inline the init function: store 11 at the address of the "value" variable, > call printf with the string from r5. This is a bug, should have stored at an > offset of four (str r1, [r4,4]). Exactly! The IR is correct, the bug seems to be lower down. I'm no expert in the ARM back-end, though. But your report is detailed enough to help whoever is. ;) cheers, --renato