similar to: [LLVMdev] [PATCH] Build llvm-config on Windows/MSVC if sed is present

Justin Holewinski <jholewinski at nvidia.com> writes: > The attached patch modifies the CMake/LLVMBuild scripts to build > llvm-config on Windows if sed is found on the user's PATH. It also > teaches LLVMBuild about MSVC library naming so llvm-config will > produce the proper lists of library names. > > Any comments? Okay to commit? The presence of sed does not mean

Thanks for the info. Is this on someone's list of things to do? On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Are multi-output patterns in TableGen supposed to work, or is that a known > limitation in the current implementation? >

It has been something we've talked about for years, but I'm not aware of anyone working on it right now. On Jan 6, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the info. Is this on someone's list of things to do? > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Bob Wilson <bob.wilson at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 4,

Are multi-output patterns in TableGen supposed to work, or is that a known limitation in the current implementation? If I have TableGen code like the following... 1242 def SDTTestNode : SDTypeProfile<2, 1, [SDTCisSameAs<0, 1>]>; 1243 def TestNode : SDNode<"NVPTXISD::TestNode", SDTTestNode>; 1244 1245 def MyTestNode : NVPTXInst<(outs Int32Regs:$dst0,

On Jan 4, 2013, at 9:52 AM, Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Are multi-output patterns in TableGen supposed to work, or is that a known limitation in the current implementation? It is a known limitation. You have to write C++ code to match patterns with multiple outputs. > > If I have TableGen code like the following... > > 1242 def SDTTestNode

It's not being executed. I'm both trying to print via outs() and add info via STATISTIC, neither is occurring. On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Justin Holewinski <jholewinski at nvidia.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-14 at 08:31 -0700, Ryan Taylor wrote: > > Where is the documentation about registering a machine pass? I'm > > unable to find it. > > >

I always though the /tags/RELEASE_xx/final branch would hold the final, released tarball contents, but this does not appear to be the case, at least not for 3.1. I can confirm that diffing /tags/RELEASE_31/final and the 3.1 tarball shows some non-trivial changes. The 3.2 release seems to be okay though; the diff only shows changes in the last-modified timestamps in the HTML docs. Though I just

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org> > To: "Jingyue Wu" <jingyue at google.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org, "Justin Holewinski" <jholewinski at nvidia.com> > Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 2:03:34 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC]

Hi, Is it possible to translate an OpenMP program to CUDA using LLVM? I read that dragonegg has a OpenMP front-end and LLVM has a PTX back-end. I don't know how mature these tools are. Please let me know. Thanks. -Apala Postdoctoral Scholar Department of Computer Science, University of Chicago Computation Institute, Argonne National Laboratory http://sites.google.com/site/apalaguha/home/

I'm experiencing a weird issue during .ll file parsing, and I'm not sure if it's a bug in the .ll parser, or if I'm just not understanding the IR. Take the following IR: @a = addrspace(1) global i8 0 @a2 = global i8 addrspace(1)* @a This parses fine. But if I rearrange the statements to: @a2 = global i8 addrspace(1)* @a @a = addrspace(1) global i8 0 then I get an ugly

The PTX back-end is robust (it's based on the sources used by nvcc), but I'm not sure about the OpenMP representation in LLVM IR. I believe the OpenMP constructs are already lowered into libgomp calls before leaving DragonEgg. It's been awhile since I've loooked at it though. If you use the PTX back-end and have any issues, please don't hesitate to post to the list and cc:

Hi Hal, Thanks for your comments! I'm inlining my responses below. Jingyue On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > Jingyue, > > I can't speak for the NVPTX backend, but I think this looks useful as an > (optional) target-independent pass. A few thoughts: > > - Running GVN tends to be pretty expensive; have you tried EarlyCSE

All, The attached patch adds two extra arguments to TargetLowering::LowerCall: RetTy and Args. These arguments are used in TargetLowering::LowerCallTo() to construct the Ins and OutVals parameters, but are not available to the target via LowerCall(). Some targets require this additional information, and the LowerCallTo() method is not virtual in TargetLowering. Instead of making that method

Hi Justin, Cool stuff, to be sure. Excited to see this. As a pre-cursor to more involved technical feedback, I suggest going through and fixing up the coding style and formatting issues. Just glancing through, I see lots of things like function names starting with capital letters, compound statements with the opening brace on the line following an if/for/while/etc., single-statements after an

> Just to be clear: we _really_ do not want all the sha's to change for trunk. Yes. That's why I said there will be other way :) In any case - please try clang.git once again. It should contain new branch/tag layout. If there will be some problems - let me know and I'll revert to prev. repository. -- With best regards, Anton Korobeynikov Faculty of Mathematics and Mechanics,

Hi LLVMers, We at NVIDIA would like to contribute back to the LLVM open-source community by up-streaming the NVPTX back-end for LLVM. This back-end is based on the sources used by NVIDIA, and currently provides significantly more functionality than the current PTX back-end. Some functionality is currently disabled due to dependencies on LLVM core changes that we are also in the process of

TargetLowering::LowerCall is already a mess, I would really prefer not to extend it any further. It's especially difficult to justify extending it without a use in the open source tree. We really should think hard about how to improve the API in two ways. Perhaps we should wrap the arguments in some struct rather than as individual ones. We should also make it easier to extend it in the

$(llvm-config --libs | tr " " "\n" | grep gtest) returns: -lgtest_main -lgtest instead of non-valid: -lLLVMgtest_main -lLLVMgtest It also fixes: $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest $(ld): cannot find -lLLVMgtest_main --- unittests/Makefile.unittest | 2 +- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/componentinfo.py | 4 ++-- utils/llvm-build/llvmbuild/main.py |

Personally I feel the most intuitive approach would be to have an equivalent of isTriviallyDisjoint for IR; we already have a model for how it would work, and it could be a TTI call. I’ve kind of wanted this for a while because there’s a lot of address-space-esque aliasing relationships that can’t be easily modeled on the IR level. For example (in our model), we have some constraints like this:

Hi Manuel, Here's another commit authored through the web interface where no discussion or reviewership information is apparent on the mailing list. All we see in cases like this are a few unthreaded list posts by the original author followed by an SVN revision number: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140714/226166.html For any patch that's submitted for