similar to: [LLVMdev] Inlining and virtualization in Clang/LLVM

I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when trying to devirtualize is the second point you made: it doesn't see the invariance of the table pointer post construction. In your specific example the constructors are trivial and inlinable so it I'm not sure why llvm would be having trouble proving the value of the

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, >> but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when trying to devirtualize >> is the second point you made: it

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, > but one of the major hurdles llvm suffers when trying to devirtualize > is the second point you made: it doesn't see the invariance of the > table pointer post construction. In your specific example the > constructors

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: > On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq >> <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> > wrote:

On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq > <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I'm not sure whether this is the exact problem at hand in your example, > >> but one of the

On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:23 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:37 AM, Nick Lewycky <nlewycky at google.com> wrote: >> On 3 October 2012 13:30, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Matthieu Monrocq >>> <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > - lambda v1.0 [2] > - local types as template arguments > - r-value 2.0 [3] > - static_assert > - built-in type traits This isn't very encouraging. Anecdotally from what I've seen in LLD

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Sean Silva <silvas at purdue.edu> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Monrocq > <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > > gcc 4.5, MSVC 10, clang 3.1 > > - decltype v1.0 [1] + late specified return type > > - lambda v1.0 [2] > > - local types as template arguments > > - r-value 2.0 [3] > > -

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 4:39 PM, John Criswell <criswell at illinois.edu>wrote: > On 5/14/12 4:32 AM, Umesh Kalappa wrote: > > Hi All , > > Was trying to build the LLVM src from > http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/branches/release_30 ,But unable to > build the same and clang poped up with below error . > > > First, it sounds like you're building LLVM

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences > >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment > here? > > > > Unless

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Tim Northover <t.p.northover at gmail.com> wrote: >> Good points David, I don't feel qualified to evaluate the differences >> between those versions though... Perhaps Richard or Doug could comment here? > > Unless I'm misreading the buildbots, we don't actually have anything > trying to build with MSVC. Have we considered how

Thank you all for the responses, John, My Bad here you go clang version 3.2 (trunk) Target: i386-pc-linux-gnu Thread model: posix [root at localhost opensrc]# cat /etc/centos-release CentOS release 6.2 (Final) Matthieu, Thanks for the fix and let me try again with latest trunk. ~Umesh On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Matthieu Monrocq <

On 8 January 2013 18:40, Matthieu Monrocq <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com>wrote: > I do believe it's undefined. > > §5.2.1 Subscripting [expr.sub] > ... > §5.7 Additive operators [expr.add] > ... > Still, doesn't explicitly say it's undefined. I agree this gives the freedom of implementers to extend naturally, but it's at least arguable. I have the 2011

Following a question on StackOverflow [1], I was wondering if for big allocations, LLVM would "delay" the allocation or rather perform it upfront. The following code was thus submitted to the LLVM Try Out page: void doSomething(char*,char*); void function(bool b) { char b1[1 * 1024]; if( b ) { char b2[1 * 1024]; doSomething(b1, b2); } else { char

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 7:29 PM, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org>wrote: > On 8 January 2013 16:53, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "fix user's stupidity" here - could you >> clarify? >> > > Buffer overrun on foo[20] and relying on it for bar[20]. > > It might not even be an

Hello all, Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, MSVC and clang. I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals where there were several, where not there is a link to a note at the bottom. Furthermore I did not scourge through 3 bug databases and I implicitly trusted the wiki page. I drew up a list of profiles, listing the base

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl at getdesigned.at> wrote: > > On 11.01.2013, at 20:08, Eli Bendersky wrote: > >>>> I suppose this tradeoff can be evaluated by looking at the delta >>>> between 4.5 and 4.6 which is actually supported by MSVC 2010 and Clang >>>> 3.1 >>> >>> Makes perfect sense to

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Matthieu M. <matthieu.monrocq at gmail.com> wrote: > Hello all, > > Using the Apache Wiki [1] I summed up what can be used simultaneously by gcc, > MSVC and clang. > > I mostly considered only the latest versions of the proposals where there were > several, where not there is a link to a note at the bottom. Furthermore I did > not

Le 14 novembre 2011 20:40, Evan Cheng <evan.cheng at apple.com> a écrit : > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 10:46 AM, David Chisnall wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > > I've been looking at benchmarks of LLVM recently, and overall they look > pretty good. Aside from things that use OpenMP or benefit from > autovectorisation, Clang/LLVM and GCC seem to come

On Aug 17, 2011, at 5:02 AM, Matthieu Monrocq wrote: > My surprise stems from the fact that Clang/LLVM seems to reserve (at least in its bytecode) space for all temporary variables, not taking into account that some are mutually exclusive. I would have expected the space to be folded. However, since this is LLVM IR, and not the final assembly, and since LLVM IR is strongly typed, it makes