similar to: [LLVMdev] Overloading intrinsic with pointer to pointer

On 14 November 2017 at 16:03, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > Dear list, > > At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working > session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided > it would be worthwhile to schedule regular sync-up calls in order to > better co-ordinate ongoing work between different developers. This is >

Dear list, At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided it would be worthwhile to schedule regular sync-up calls in order to better co-ordinate ongoing work between different developers. This is primarily to sync-up, share blocking issues and so on. I understand something similar was done during the

LLVM Weekly - #52, Dec 29th 2014 =============================== If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/52>. Welcome to the fifty-second issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 27 August 2017 at 00:01, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: >> Hi all. I'm assuming most people reading this email are familiar with LLVM's >> code review process <http://llvm.org/docs/DeveloperPolicy.html#code-reviews> >> as well as LLVM Weekly, the

We are pleased to announce the first LLVM Cauldron, to be held on Thursday September 8th 2016 in Hebden Bridge, UK. This is the day before the GNU Tools Cauldron being held at the same venue, so we hope to take advantage of the high concentration of compiler enthusiasts and to encourage lots of cross-pollination between communities. This will be a one-day conference with a single talks track and

As many of you know, I have a growing series of patches for a RISC-V backend under/awaiting review <https://reviews.llvm.org/differential/?authors=asb&order=updated>, <http://github.com/lowrisc/riscv-llvm>. I'll be posting a larger status update on that work either later today or tomorrow, this RFC focuses on an issue that came up during review which I think may benefit from

On 11 May 2014 13:25, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 6 May 2014 09:42, Jay Foad <jay.foad at gmail.com> wrote: >> I followed a link from LLVM Weekly to http://reviews.llvm.org/rL207598 and got: >> >> " >> Still Importing... >> >> This commit is still importing. Changes will be visible once the >> import finishes.

On 18 August 2016 at 15:21, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 18 August 2016 at 14:32, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: >> Good question, I didn't mention buildbots in this RFC as from a quick >> look at http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders it didn't look like >> early-stage architecture ports tend to have one, and as you say

On 23 November 2017 at 09:38, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: > On 14 November 2017 at 16:03, Alex Bradbury <asb at lowrisc.org> wrote: >> Dear list, >> >> At the RISC-V BoF at the LLVM Dev Meeting and the longer working >> session the day after, those of us working on RISC-V with LLVM decided >> it would be worthwhile to schedule regular

On 18 August 2016 at 00:08, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > On 17 August 2016 at 10:14, Alex Bradbury via llvm-dev >> * Codegen >> * Compressed instruction set support (RVC) >> * Benchmarking and comparison to GCC RISC-V (and potentially other archs) > > What about buildbots? > > I'm assuming "check-all" would be enough for

On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Alex Bradbury <asb at asbradbury.org> wrote: > On 12 May 2014 08:35, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> > wrote: > >> > >> It seems that we cannot execute svn commands against llvm-project any > >> more: > >> $ svn

LLVM Weekly - #57, Feb 2nd 2015 =============================== If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/57>. Welcome to the fifty-seventh issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 00:28, Thomas Lively via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I just wanted to bump this to see if anyone has any input. I would really like to get these landed soon if there are no objections. Hi Thomas, With ISD::FMINNAN and ISD::FMAXNAN now easy to produce for any target due to these newly exposed intrinsics, I think these nodes should be handled

I wanted to confirm that my understanding of the situation is correct. For background, I've been working have an optimizer pass for a research architecture which works best when there are large basic blocks and good alias analysis results. I first noticed the issue in rgbcmy01 from eembc-1.1, but have created a simpler test case which demonstrates the same issue which is unencumbered by the

After a few attempts I think we’re in sight of success: we only have the two following bots remaining with old versions of libstdc++ and new versions of clang: polly-amd64-linux polly-arm-linux Once fixed the toolchain bump should stick. > On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:07 PM, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > >> On Jan 31, 2019, at 2:03 PM,

On 7 March 2017 at 17:58, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > Today, the vast majority of target in Clang coerce aggregates passed this > way into appropriate word-sized types. They all use their own custom > heuristics to compute the LLVM types used for the coercions. It's terrible, > but this is the current consensus. > > I would like to improve the situation

LLVM Weekly - #46, Nov 17th 2014 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/46>. Welcome to the forty-sixth issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex Bradbury](http://asbradbury.org).

Hello various people, A few LLVM folk are in town for the ARM researchers gathering towards the end of the week and we discussed briefly the idea of having a small pub outing for them this week. It looks as if Wednesday is the best day, so let’s aim to go back to the Fort St George[1]. The weather is supposed to be warm again this week (though I’m sure Renato will strive to organise rain for

LLVM Weekly - #157, Jan 2nd 2017 ================================ If you prefer, you can read a HTML version of this email at <http://llvmweekly.org/issue/157>. Welcome to the one hundred and fifty-seventh issue of LLVM Weekly, a weekly newsletter (published every Monday) covering developments in LLVM, Clang, and related projects. LLVM Weekly is brought to you by [Alex

On Tue, 29 Jan 2019 at 21:05, JF Bastien via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > The patch is about ready to land, which means any older compiler will soft-error (which you can turn off with LLVM_TEMPORARILY_ALLOW_OLD_TOOLCHAIN). I think we should then cherry-pick the patch to the LLVM 8 branch. > > The last remaining issue are the buildbots. I audited *all* bots in