similar to: [LLVMdev] Questions about event handler implementation

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Jonas Paulsson" <jonas.paulsson at ericsson.com> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 9:19:14 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > To: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Friday, May 22, 2015 8:45:11 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Problems with instruction scheduling > > > > Any comments? Not in particular, but I think we're pretty close to applying a rewrite by Jonas Paulsson

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 6:30 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> > wrote: > > > > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. >

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 12:08:37 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>, "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 6:42:41 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation - what to

----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Pete Cooper" <peter_cooper at apple.com>, "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 7:17:19 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] extractelement causes memory access violation

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 11:03 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Paweł Bylica" <chfast at gmail.com> > > To: "David Majnemer" <david.majnemer at gmail.com> > > Cc: "LLVMdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 5:42:24 AM > > Subject: Re:

Thanks! Currently using MCJIT. But migration to ORC is on my TODO list. - Paweł On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 8:30 PM Lang Hames <lhames at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Pawel, > > Option (1) and (3) are very similar, but using custom resolution (option > 3) guarantees that JIT'd code can't accidentally end up depending on > functions in your JIT that you didn't mean to

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 5:55 PM Justin Bogner <mail at justinbogner.com> wrote: > Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> writes: > > I can confirm that the issue has been caused by NDEBUG flag. > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 6:29 PM Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > > > > The layout of AssertingVH has depended on NDEBUG since 2009,

There are two unexpected failures in the check-all (this check-all runs with self-build-clang): Failing Tests (2): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/clang-tidy-diff.cpp Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/file-filter.cpp Last log: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/340/steps/ninja%20check%202/logs/stdio From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April

On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:42 PM David Majnemer <david.majnemer at gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Let's have a simple program: >> define i32 @main(i32 %n, i64 %idx) { >> %idxSafe = trunc i64 %idx to i5 >> %r = extractelement <4 x i32> <i32 -1, i32

The other MCJIT improvements aren’t dependent on the triple changes at all. The reason that this came up in the context of MCJIT is that the quickest way to get MCJIT support on Windows is to enable the generation of ELF object images on Windows. We previously proposed a minimal approach of just adding “ELF” to the recognized triple environment strings. This is the way that MachO generation is

On 06/26/2015 08:42 AM, David Majnemer wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Paweł Bylica <chfast at gmail.com > <mailto:chfast at gmail.com>> wrote: > > Hi, > > Let's have a simple program: > define i32 @main(i32 %n, i64 %idx) { > %idxSafe = trunc i64 %idx to i5 > %r = extractelement <4 x i32> <i32 -1, i32

If we do load combining at the IR level, one thing we'll need to give some thought to is atomicity.  Combining two atomic loads into a wider (legal) atomic load is not a reversible transformation given our current specification. I've been thinking about a concept I've been tentatively calling "element wise atomicity" which would make this a reversible transform by

Has anything more happened with this? -Andy From: Jim Grosbach [mailto:grosbach at apple.com] Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 7:51 AM To: Paweł Bylica; Chris Lattner Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu (LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu); Kaylor, Andrew Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: MCJIT enhancements On Aug 17, 2012, at 2:50 AM, Paweł Bylica <pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl<mailto:pawel.bylica at ibs.org.pl>>

Hello everyone, I need some advises about (re)using ExecutionEngine with MCJIT as a driver. I'm developing a service that receives a piece of high-level code, compiles it into LLVM IR function "main" and uses MCJIT to execute the function. It can happen that the same piece of code is sent to the service many times. I would like to cache the results (keep generated machine code

On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:23 PM, Jim Grosbach <grosbach at apple.com> wrote: > Chris, are you OK with the below changes to the Triple? If at all possible, I'd like to keep the triple changes separate (separate patch series and separate discussion) from the other MCJIT changes. How dependent are the MCJIT improvements on the Triple changes? As you've noticed, Triple is not a

Hi Bill, Thanks for working on this. Is there a reference for the function attribute uwtable, or is it to be defined as part of this effort? Thanks in advance Garrison On Jul 23, 2011, at 1:29, Bill Wendling wrote: > What? Yet another EH proposal?! This one is different from the others in that > I'm planning to start implementing this shortly. But I want your feedback! I've

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi Paweł, >> I have a problem that was reported some time ago but never received >> any solution. > > probably the reason that there is no action is surely that the old JIT > implementation is being replaced with the new MCJIT implementation, so > no-one feels very motivated to fix the old

Joerg Sonnenberger via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> writes: > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 05:05:18PM +0000, Paweł Bylica via llvm-dev wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2016, 17:57 Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg at bec.de> wrote: >> >> > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 03:24:22PM +0000, Paweł Bylica via llvm-dev wrote: >> > > Hi LLVM, >> > > >>