similar to: [LLVMdev] Status of YAML IO?

On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Sean Silva wrote: > Hey Nick, what's the status on YAML IO? The other thread seems to have died.\ I'm waiting on Michael Spencer's feedback. The issues I know of right now are: 1) Should we structure YAML I/O to be a more general I/O utility that could support reading and writing other data formats such as JSON or plists. RIght now, all the code is

On Oct 22, 2012, at 5:07 PM, Nick Kledzik wrote: > On Oct 22, 2012, at 4:40 PM, Sean Silva wrote: >> Hey Nick, what's the status on YAML IO? The other thread seems to have died. > > I'm waiting on Michael Spencer's feedback. To better understand how a client would use YAML I/O. I've completely rewritten the ReaderYAML and WriterYAML in lld to use YAML I/O. The

> To better understand how a client would use YAML I/O. I've completely rewritten the ReaderYAML and WriterYAML in lld to use YAML I/O. The source code is now about half the size. But more importantly, the error checking is much, much better and any time an attribute (e.g. of an Atom) is changed or added, there is just one place to update the yaml code instead of two places (the reader

Michael, To validate the refactor of YAML Reader/Writer using YAML I/O. I updated all the test cases to be compatible with YAML I/O. One issue that was a gnarly was how to handle the test cases with archives. Currently, we have test cases like: --- atoms: - name: foo # more stuff --- archive: - name bar.o atoms: - name: bar # more stuff This sort of

Hi Nick, I had a few questions :- 1) Is there a way to validate that the input file is of a valid format, thats defined by the YAML Reader ? 2) How are you plannning to represent section groups in the YAML ? 3) How are you planning to support Atom specific flags ? Is there a way already ? (This would be needed to group similiar atoms together) 4) Are you planning to support representing

On Oct 30, 2012, at 7:12 AM, Shankar Easwaran wrote: > Hi Nick, > > I had a few questions :- > > 1) Is there a way to validate that the input file is of a valid format, thats defined by the YAML Reader ? Do you mean different than if the yaml reader accepts it? Tons of files will be valid yaml syntactically. It is the semantic level checking that is hard, and that is what

Trying to build LLVM 3.8 (or trunk) with the 2016 Intel C++ compiler. It fails on the std::declval feature: llvm-3.8/include/llvm/ADT/iterator_range.h(63): error: namespace "std" has no member "declval" iterator_range<decltype(begin(std::declval<T>()))> drop_begin(T &&t, int n) { An isolated std::declval example shows that this compiler doesn't

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Reduced testcase: > > > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > > template<typename T> struct B { > > struct C { typedef typename

On Sep 28, 2012, at 10:18 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Howard Hinnant <hhinnant at apple.com> wrote: > On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > > > Reduced testcase: > > > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > >

On Sep 28, 2012, at 5:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > Reduced testcase: > > template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; > template<typename T> struct B { > struct C { typedef typename A<C*>::type type; }; > typedef typename A<C*>::type type; > }; > B<int> b; > > ... produces ...

Reduced testcase: template<typename T> struct A { typedef decltype(T() + 0) type; }; template<typename T> struct B { struct C { typedef typename A<C*>::type type; }; typedef typename A<C*>::type type; }; B<int> b; ... produces ... <stdin>:3:38: error: no type named 'type' in 'A<B<int>::C *>' struct C { typedef typename

Is this a relevant location to provide information about what I believe is a compiler bug in clang? If not, please forgive me for posting it here. (Perhaps you can redirect me to some place more appropriate.) If so, here are the details: I have a short 15-line C++ program using only one standard header that clang fails to compile properly under C++11 with the new standard library (although the

This doesn't appear to me to be the same issue (but of course I don't know clang as well as you all do). This code appears invalid (and G++ rejects it with a similar "no type named ..." error message), whereas the original code is valid C++ (both C++98 and C++11). On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Richard Smith <richard at metafoo.co.uk> wrote: > Reduced testcase: >

Thanks for the reply Nick. 1) Is there a way to validate that the input file is of a valid format, thats defined by the YAML Reader ? > Do you mean different than if the yaml reader accepts it? Tons of > files will be valid yaml syntactically. It is the semantic level > checking that is hard, and that is what YAML I/O does. > Yes, if the YAML reader accepts it and figures out that

On Fri, Sep 28, 2012 at 5:11 PM, Adam Peterson <alpha.eta.pi at gmail.com>wrote: > This doesn't appear to me to be the same issue (but of course I don't > know clang as well as you all do). This code appears invalid (and G++ > rejects it with a similar "no type named ..." error message), whereas > the original code is valid C++ (both C++98 and C++11). [The

That is one evil bug! I just tested it against tip-of-trunk clang and it appears to be fixed there (just fyi for everyone). Howard On Sep 27, 2012, at 7:17 PM, Adam Peterson <alpha.eta.pi at gmail.com> wrote: > Is this a relevant location to provide information about what I > believe is a compiler bug in clang? If not, please forgive me for > posting it here. (Perhaps you can

Hi Dave, It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is no succ_begin for Machine BasicBlock. I'm looking to make the CFGSuccessors and CFGPredecessors classes in CFGDiff.h templated, and this needs a common API for all types instantiations. Does this clarify your question or did I misunderstand

Hi, As part of an ongoing work to extend the GraphDiff (this models a CFG view), I came across the need to have a common interface for accessing successors/predecessors in various IR units, such that a type such as `typename NodeT::succ_iterator` could be used in templated code. In particular, the need arose for BasicBlocks, MachineBasicBlocks, VPBlockBase and clang::CFGBlock. The least invasive

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 2:30 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 8:31 AM Alina Sbirlea <alina.sbirlea at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Dave, >> >> It may be possible to do this with the current API, but what I was >> looking for is a common API for existing block types. For example there is >> no

Hi Nick, > Can you be more specific in your proposal. What method(s) would you add to the the Atom class(es)? I thought you were thinking of a generic uint32_t DefinedAtom::flags() method where the meaning of each bit in the uint32_t returned was platform specific. How can that work with a min/max range? > The range of flags would be integers ranging from LOW_PROC .. HIGH_PROC. The