similar to: [LLVMdev] About writing an alias analysis pass for LLVM 3.1

Hi, Does your pass use multiple inheritance? Sounds like your problem is that you need to define getAdjustedAnalysisPointer, see: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/classllvm_1_1Pass.html#a03d3a81b1c46aff7c38ef3a6750ba225 An example implementation (very likely exactly what you want) is in LibCallAliasAnalysis: http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/LibCallAliasAnalysis_8h_source.html#l00060 Hope

I don't think we should make flush virtual. Why do you need to do it? Can't you set up the base class to write to use the tail of the memory region as the buffer? On 24 April 2015 at 06:46, Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Is this what you're thinking about? > The code is not tested yet, I'd like to know if the overall direction and >

Could you dig into why: + raw_ostream &write(unsigned char C) override { + grow(1); + *OutBufCur++ = C; + return *this; + } Is 3 times as fast as raw_svector_ostream? I don't see a good reason why that should be any faster than: raw_ostream &operator<<(char C) { if (OutBufCur >= OutBufEnd) return write(C); *OutBufCur++ = C; return *this; }

Sean, thanks for reminding this, Alp did commit a class derived from raw_svector_ostream conatining an internal SmallString he called small_string_ostream. The commit was reverted after a day due to a disagreement about the commit approval and apparently abandoned. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140623/223393.html

+update diff 2015-05-02 7:38 GMT+03:00 Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>: > I outlined (is that the right > word?) raw_char_ostream::grow, raw_char_ostream::write (both) into > raw_ostream.cpp with less than 10% difference in performance. > > Profiling reveals that the real culprit is the code line > > OS.reserve(OS.size() + 64); > > called from

A very common code pattern in LLVM is SmallString<128> S; raw_svector_ostream OS(S); OS<< ... Use OS.str() While raw_svector_ostream is smart to share the text buffer itself, it's inefficient keeping two sets of pointers to the same buffer: In SmallString: void *BeginX, *EndX, *CapacityX In raw_ostream: char *OutBufStart, *OutBufEnd, *OutBufCur Moreover, at runtime the

I have used the following command for my pass (without -mem2reg): clang -Xclang -load -Xclang MYPASS.so -c ../../tests/test1.c For mem2reg, I tried the following: clang -mllvm -mem2reg -Xclang -load -Xclang MYPASS.so -c ../../tests/test1.c On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 9:26 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > >> On Mar 21, 2016, at 6:23 PM, Syed Rafiul Hussain

Unless mem2reg does something other than my understanding of it, I can't see why any pass would "require" that... It is not guaranteed to do anything to any particular piece of code, so relying on it seems very unreliable, I would think. -- Mats On 22 March 2016 at 04:32, Kevin Hu via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > > Is there any way that

+llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org The impact should be small as all the other streamers usually write directly to the memory buffer and only when out of buffer they call write(). OTOH, raw_svector_ostream (without a buffer) goes though write for every character or block it writes. It can work without virtual write() by overriding the existing virtual write_impl() but this is a slower code path for

Here's a performance testcase for the raw_svector_ostream patch. On my WIndows x64 machine it runs in 1010ms with the current code and in 440ms with the patch applies. Is this OK to commit? 2015-05-02 21:31 GMT+03:00 Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com>: > Following a hint from Duncan in http://llvm.org/pr23395, here is a > revised patch. Rather then introduce the

Hi, I like to produce a series of levelplot graphs in postscript file, so I put the trunk of codes including postscript() and levelplot() in a for loop. The codes work fine outside the loop, but only produce empty .ps file when being put within the loop. Is it a problem associated with postscript() or levelplot()? How to get around the problem? Many thanks! Yan [[alternative HTML

https://bugzilla.samba.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11338 Bug ID: 11338 Summary: Rsync Crash - Segmentation fault Product: rsync Version: 3.1.1 Hardware: x64 OS: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: P5 Component: core Assignee: wayned at samba.org Reporter:

> On Dec 7, 2016, at 10:27 AM, Viacheslav Nikolaev <viacheslav.nikolaev at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I believe it’ll always forward directly to raw_fd_ostream::write_impl(), which is calling the libc ::write(). > > Do you mean raw_fd_ostream somehow overrides the operator<< the code for which I extracted? > I cannot see if that is so. And I really saw it didn't

This code from raw_ostream.h is really racy: raw_ostream &operator<<(StringRef Str) { // Inline fast path, particularly for strings with a known length. size_t Size = Str.size(); // Make sure we can use the fast path. if (Size > (size_t)(OutBufEnd - OutBufCur)) return write(Str.data(), Size); if (Size) { memcpy(OutBufCur, Str.data(), Size);

Hello, [sorry for the duplicate post, attempting to fix the formatting of the previous post] Can anybody tell me the intent of the LibCallAliasAnalysis class? I see that to instantiate it, it requires a class derived from the pure virtual class LibCallInfo, but I cannot find any classes in the source tree that derive from LibCallInfo. Is this derived class intended to be supplied from a compiler

On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Mehdi Amini via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Dec 7, 2016, at 1:52 AM, Viacheslav Nikolaev via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > This code from raw_ostream.h is really racy: > > > > raw_ostream &operator<<(StringRef Str) { > > // Inline fast path,

r244870 (with the change you requested), thanks! I initially placed the virtual function in header since they were one-liners. The coding standards say that an anchor() function should be supplied, which was indeed missing. Other than required anchor function, why should the virtual functions go in the .cpp? Should I move the empty raw_svector_ostream destructor to the .cpp file too as well?

Hi All, I’m currently working on a simple task which needs to transform loops into tail-recursive functions. I found the CodeExtractor class a handy helper to use, but later encountered a problem. Consider the following CU struct S { int a, b; }; int foo(struct S *s, unsigned n) {   struct S *next = s;   unsigned i;   for (i = 0; i < n; ++i) {     if (!s[i].a)      

attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS build as of revision: 51224. I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build all the way through. -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: msvs.patch URL:

Hi Dmitri, For what version of VS did you update the project files? Ted On May 17, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Dmitri Makarov wrote: > attached is the diff of vcprojs that need to be changed to fix the VS > build as of revision: 51224. > > I don't know if this catches all the missing bits, but this does build > all the way through. > > > Index: win32/Analysis/Analysis.vcproj