similar to: [LLVMdev] Website side menu is missing links for EU llvm-dev meetings

For those wondering about the C backend, a patch(set) to current trunk is available but too large to send through the LLVM mailinglist. I can send the patch(es) directly if people are interested. Cheers, Roel On 17/11/12 03:48, David Claughton wrote: > Hi Roel, > > On 13/09/12 11:02, Roel Jordans wrote: >> >> For those that are interested, I can provide a patch to the

I think the problem here is that the IR doesn't have any way to attach restrict information to loads/stores/pointers. It works on arguments because they can be given the 'noalias' attribute, and then the alias analyzer must understand what that means. Pete On Jan 24, 2012, at 7:47 AM, Roel Jordans wrote: > I have no clue, I didn't have time to look into that example yet.

I have no clue, I didn't have time to look into that example yet. How does the IR (before optimization) differ from the other version? Roel On 01/24/2012 04:45 PM, Brent Walker wrote: > Can you explain please why it works for this version of the function: > > double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double > *__restrict__ z); > > What is different here?

Peter Cooper wrote: > I think the problem here is that the IR doesn't have any way to attach restrict information to loads/stores/pointers. I think we do now, actually. Now that the loads and stores have TBAA metadata, I think the restrict attribute can go there. It needs to be attached to every use of a restrict pointer, but that's similar to how TBAA already works. > It works

On 17-03-17 22:34, Mehdi Amini wrote: >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I have a question related to GSoC. One of my students submitted an idea [1] for a GSoC project and I would be interested in (co-)mentoring this project but I'm unsure of the qualification requirements for

Can you explain please why it works for this version of the function: double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double *__restrict__ z); What is different here? There are stores here as well. Brent On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at tue.nl> wrote: > Hi Brent, > > I think this is a problem in the easy-cse transform. In this transform

> On Mar 18, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > > (Adding Anton here) > > On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 3:42 PM Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > On 17-03-17 22:34, Mehdi Amini wrote: > >> On Mar 17, 2017, at 12:39 PM, Roel Jordans via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

If you want to get the original name by a library function, as Jonathan mentioned, you can call __cxa_demangle in cxxabi.h. However, this API is only available in gcc. If you want something more portable, try glog or libibert, notice libibert is GPL licensed. On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at tue.nl> wrote: > When a C++ compiler translates source code it will

I'm very interested in this patch. Could you, Roel, upload it somewhere or maybe put your code to github or something simmilar? Additional - you're fixing it - could you please provide a little more information - what should I read to get more informations about writing not hardware but software backend in LLVM? (Of course the code analysis is one way, but maybe there is other also).

Hi Brent, I think this is a problem in the easy-cse transform. In this transform load operations can be replaced by their subexpression, in this case the propagated constant, based on the value of the 'CurrentGeneration' of memory writes. This implies that any store operation invalidates the knowledge about previously stored subexpressions. In general, this is a safe assumption but

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roel Jordans" <r.jordans at tue.nl> > To: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2014 5:57:15 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Proposal for ""llvm.mem.vectorize.safelen" > > > > > WHY CURRENT METADATA DOES NOT SUFFICE > > ------------------------------------- > > > > There

Hi Roel, the code you list below is precisely what I expect to get (of course the stores must happen but the constant folding should happen as well). It all looks very strange. LLVM is behaving as if the __restrict__ keyword was not used at all. Even more strange is the fact that for this function: double f(double *__restrict__ x, double *__restrict__ y, double *__restrict__ z) { *x = 1.0;

Hi Roel, On 13/09/12 11:02, Roel Jordans wrote: > > For those that are interested, I can provide a patch to the current > trunk which provides a working version of the C backend. So far this > patch just takes the parts that were removed and updates them to the > current infrastructure. > Yes please! I've been looking at the C backend recently with a view towards seeing

Hi Sergos and Samuel, Thanks for the links, I've got it mostly working now. I still have a problem with linking the code. It seems that the clang driver doesn't pass its library search path to nvlink when linking the generated cuda code to the target library, resulting in it not correctly finding libtarget-nvptx.a. Is there some flag or environment variable that I should set here?

Hello, See answers below On 31/01/13 00:23, César wrote: > Hello. > > I'm using these commands to compile the code below in order to collect > edge/blocks profiling: > > clang -emit-llvm -c sort.c -o sort.bc > opt -insert-edge-profiling sort.bc -o sort_prof.bc > clang sort_prof.bc -lprofile_rt -L/llvms/lib -o sort_prof > > then I run the program and display the

Hi Arnold, On 06/12/12 08:50, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote: > On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 10:05:03AM +0800, Mingliang LIU wrote: >> Hi Arnold, >> >> Thank you. I googled but missed the release notes. >> >> Regards. > > Someone else out there tried to bring cbe back. You can search the ML > archieve and reach them out. > That would be me. > Regards,

On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 1:53 AM, Roel Jordans <r.jordans at tue.nl> wrote: > For those wondering about the C backend, a patch(set) to current trunk is > available but too large to send through the LLVM mailinglist. I can send > the patch(es) directly if people are interested. > That *is* interesting. I suppose you could use any of the number of free file/snippet/paste upload

Hello all, I am in need for a working C back-end for LLVM for my current research. I know that the previous incarnation of this back-end has been kicked out of the tree since the 3.1 release and I have gone through the archives to restore it to it's previous 'glory'. So far, I have restored most of the previous version (excluding some of the parts that needed changes outside of

Hi, I have a version of the old CBackend which is working with the current trunk. I am in the progress of rewriting it into a new version but that project is not going as fast as I would hope as I have been distracted by other tasks with higher priority lately. Anyway, for those interested, I can provide patches, optionally separated into several parts (core, testing, misc). I am afraid that

Hi all, I'm organizing a BoF session during the upcoming EuroLLVM developers meeting. As the subject of this message already shows, this session will be on compilers in education. I'm currently looking for both participants to the discussion and input for the actual program of the session. I've already got some ideas which I'll introduce below. At our university, we mostly