similar to: [LLVMdev] target dependent bitcode pass

On 04/02/2013 03:31 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > On 04/02/2013 03:00 PM, reed kotler wrote: >> How do you add a target dependent transform pass? >> >> tia. >> >> eed > > I need to add a module pass. Do you need to just add them to the Transform subdirectory????

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Reed Kotler" <rkotler at mips.com> > Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2013 6:30:56 PM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] adding a target dependent transform pass > > On 04/02/2013 03:31 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > > On 04/02/2013 03:00 PM, reed kotler wrote: > >> How do you add a target dependent

On 12/14/2013 04:06 AM, sebald.ziegler.maillist at ikolus.de wrote: > On Friday, December 13, 2013 23:15:45 reed kotler wrote: >> Has anyone done any comparisons of bitcode vs native code (.o) in terms >> of size? >> >> TIA. >> >> Reed >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> LLVM Developers mailing list >>

We are considering running clang format on the whole Mips target. Is there any rule against this? Is there any good argument against doing this even if there is no rule against it? TIA. Reed

I see what my problem is here.... I'll continue to move further. Seems like Richards fix is still okay. On 02/25/2014 02:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:41 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

On 03/19/2015 09:57 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:52 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

On 03/19/2015 09:38 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler >> <reed.kotler at imgtec.com <mailto:reed.kotler at

On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> I need to leave soon and will take a look in the morning. >> >> I did look at the autoconf input files configure.ac >> >> There is a disable-zlib but not a disable-valgrind, even though it seems >> like there used to be.

On 03/19/2015 09:24 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Reed Kotler <reed.kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:reed.kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > Well, you are an mclinker contributor > > > Me personally? Not that I know of. Sorry. I thought i had seen your name in an mclinker commit. > > and Google uses mclinker >

Well, you are an mclinker contributor and Google uses mclinker and now it's broken as the result of your change. I still don't see any justification to making a change in a public interface that is used by other non LLVM projects to fix some issue with clang warnings. People should be able to derive from those classes. I can't understand your reasoning as to why these classes must

If you can't make an executable test from C or C++ code then how do you know something works. Just by examination of the .s? On 09/30/2014 03:18 PM, Reed Kotler wrote: > If I wanted to call this function that they generated by hand, from C or > C+ code, how would that be done? > > if have seen cases where a real boolean gets generated but it was > something fairly involved.

On 06/10/2014 05:51 PM, Pete Cooper wrote: > Hi Reed > > You can do this on the instruction itself by telling it 2 operands > must be the same register. For example, from X86: > > let Constraints = "$src1 = $dst" in > defm INSERTPS : SS41I_insertf32<0x21, "insertps">; > > Thanks, Hi Pete, Sorry. I should have been more specific. I'm

I used the A9 schedule as an example: http://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/lib/Target/ARM/ARMScheduleA9.td The documentation could use more clarity, but this is how I was able to do it to always get two specific instructions to be scheduled together. ________________________________________ From: reed kotler [rkotler at mips.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013 8:54 PM To: Micah Villmow

On 02/25/2014 02:38 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 2:32 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: >> On 02/25/2014 09:30 AM, Richard Sandiford wrote: >>> reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> writes: >>>> On 02/24/2014 04:42 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 4:40 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at

On 03/19/2015 08:55 AM, David Blaikie wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Reed Kotler <Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com > <mailto:Reed.Kotler at imgtec.com>> wrote: > > One could argue that mclinker is doing something good or not by > how it's using this class > but I don't see the need for parser<bool> to be final. That is a >

Okay. Cool. So do you bootrstrap and verify as part of the usual testing? Do the nightly scripts do this? Reed On 06/28/2012 11:08 AM, Eric Christopher wrote: > On Jun 27, 2012, at 10:48 PM, Reed Kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > >> On 06/27/2012 05:00 PM, Eric Christopher wrote: >>> On Jun 19, 2012, at 5:24 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at mips.com> wrote:

I understand that but falling back makes the compilation slower. I'm wondering what could be done to remove this restriction about fast-isel not being able to handle non legal types. ________________________________________ From: Anton Korobeynikov [anton at korobeynikov.info] Sent: Sunday, August 31, 2014 12:55 AM To: Reed Kotler Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] lowering

Reed, Couldn't you also use instruction scheduling classes and specify that the second instruction has a bypass from the first instruction? The scheduler should always schedule them together in that case. Micah > -----Original Message----- > From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On > Behalf Of reed kotler > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Hi Sean, Glad to hear there is clean up of tablegen going on. Just for the record, I don't know what you are referring to regarding some comment of mine at my talk about 10K LOC. I don't know how big tablegen is itself nor how much code has been written in it so I would not have ventured such a guess. The idea of totally replacing the tablegen language came up at the talk during the

Can we get back to the substantive discussion about your ideas for lessening the technical debt? On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 8:05 PM, reed kotler <rkotler at mips.com> wrote: > Well, differences of opinion is what makes horse races. > > Reed > > > On 06/04/2012 04:57 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 7:53 PM, reed kotler<rkotler at