similar to: [LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] The ComputeHash algorithm in FoldingSet is unsafe

I should also implement NodeEquals() method. Please ignore this message. ------------------ Original ------------------ From: "Xu Zhongxing"<xuzhongxing at foxmail.com>; Date: Mon, Sep 26, 2011 10:11 PM To: "llvmdev"<llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>; Subject: [LLVMdev] [LLVMDev] The ComputeHash algorithm in FoldingSet isunsafe I use FoldingSet to save some data

On Feb 10, 2010, at 4:49 PM, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: >> >> These numbers are so noisy, that they aren't particularly useful. >> Could you try instrumenting foldingset to keep track track of the # >> collisions and # hash table resizes and compare those? They should >> be much more stable and still correlate directly to performance. > > OK, now with real

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote: > I needed these for some work I'm doing in clang... > Yes sir! At least this message was informative. One thing: + int size() const { + int n = 0; + for(iterator i = begin() ; i != end() ; ++n, ++i) + ; + return n; + } + bool empty() const { + return size() == 0; + } empty() here

Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never really seen a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If you need size() itself, however, this seems like a perfectly valid addition. On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:57 AM, Ted Kremenek wrote: > > On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: > Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. > ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never really seen > a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If you need size() > itself, however, this seems like a perfectly valid addition.

On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> > wrote: >> Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. >> ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have never >> really seen >> a case where "size()" needs to be explicitly calculated. If

On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2009, at 8:14 PM, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Ted Kremenek <kremenek at apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> Actually, neither of these methods are needed for ImmutableSet. >>> ImmutableSet already has an 'isEmpty()' method and I have

I needed these for some work I'm doing in clang... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: set.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 1925 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090211/82192816/attachment.obj>

On Mon, Feb 08, 2010 at 10:31:23AM -0800, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:03 PM, Gregory Petrosyan wrote: > > >On Sat, Feb 06, 2010 at 04:51:15PM -0800, Chandler Carruth wrote: > >>While I've not reviewed the patch in too much detail, it looks > >>promising. Can you run some end-to-end benchmarks to make sure that > >>cache pressure in the

On Feb 11, 2009, at 10:54 AM, Bill Wendling wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 10:36 AM, Ben Laurie <benl at google.com> wrote: >> I needed these for some work I'm doing in clang... >> > Yes sir! At least this message was informative. One thing: > > + int size() const { > + int n = 0; > + for(iterator i = begin() ; i != end() ; ++n, ++i) > + ;

Hi, While profiling LLVM using my test-cases with huge MBBs, I noticed that FoldingSetNodeID operations (ComputeHash,insertion,etc) may become really inefficient for the nodes, which have very many operands. I can give you an example of what is meant by "very many". In my test-case (you can fetch it from here http://llvm.org/bugs/attachment.cgi?id=1275), which is just one HUGE MBB

Hi Chris, This is a good idea and I started thinking in that direction already. But what I don't quite understand the TFs, how TFs are formed and which rules they should obey to. For example now: > PendingLoads created by the SelectionDAGLowering::getLoadFrom and then copied into the > TokenFactor node by SelectionDAGLowering::getRoot called from the >

Hi Chris, Your were totally right with your suggestion. I have implemented the code that : a) does not merge multiple TokenFactor nodes in the DAGCombiner::visitTokenFactor(), if the resulting TF node would contain more than 64 operands. b) produces a bunch of TokenFactor nodes with at most 64 operands, instead of one huge TokenFactor in the SelectionDAGLowering::getRoot(). If we have n

Il 26/09/2011 16:49, Jakob Stoklund Olesen ha scritto: > On Sep 26, 2011, at 2:41 AM, 陳韋任 wrote: > >>> The greedy allocator is global, but so was the old linear scan allocator. >> In http://blog.llvm.org/2011/09/greedy-register-allocation-in-llvm-30.html >> , it says "The algorithm is local, and it cannot clean up messes that >> extend beyond a single basic

Just a quick question: is greedy still a local allocator (i.e. only takes into consideration the current bb) or a global one (takes into consideration the whole function)? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20110926/d87aa2bd/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text

Hi all, Does PTX backend support llvm sitofp instruction? I failed to compile my llvm source when use llc -march=ptx32. The reason is that the source has a sitofp instruction. After i changed the instruction into uitofp manually, it passed. Thanks in advance, best, Yabin -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

We are experiencing some packet loss between xen machines which we haven't seen before. Is this a problem anyone's run into before and/or has ideas on how to diagnose the issue? The setup is CentOS 5 xen-3.0.3-80.el5_3.3 Aaron -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hey guys, I'm working on a bug for x86-64 in LLVM 2.9. Well, it's actually two issues. The assembly generated for large stack offsets has an overflow; And, once the overflow is fixed, the displacement is too large for GNU ld to handle it. void fool( int long n ) { double w[268435600]; double z[268435600]; unsigned long i; for ( i = 0; i < n; i++ ) { w[i] = 1.0; z[i] =

I have somebody working on this. You can communicate with him. He just started and does not have his mips account yet. /simon/@/atanasyan/.com There are many issues related to the driver. Reed On 09/25/2011 07:36 PM, Liu wrote: > On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:23 AM, Anton Korobeynikov > <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: >> Hello >> >>> How can I use the right

Dear Support officer, Could you please Unsubscribe me from this mailing list, as it is a duplicate copy of my other email Kind Regards Harry On Mon, Sep 26, 2011 at 1:11 AM, Ralph Angenendt <ralph.angenendt at gmail.com>wrote: > On 09/20/2011 03:03 AM, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: > > > Is it possible to automatically number lines in code, but without syntax > >