similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM Demo Page Disabled

Is that the reason for the down-time? Damn people running their compile jobs on llvm.org... :) On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > The LLVM demo page is currently disabled. I will notify the list if/when > it gets re-enabled. > > Thanks, > Tanya > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list

> Indeed, dragonegg supports Fortran, but through a gfortran bridge. The > really interesting part in Fortran is in fact arrays! > > Anyway, it's just my opinion, I'm a simple user ;) Fortran has its own standard library and it's damn big. Also, the Fortran grammar is not the simplest (or, rather - straightforward one). So this certainly looks too big for GSoC. Though, it

I always liked the sound of 'flang' :) I'm curious, what benefits would we see from a "native" Fortran compiler for LLVM versus DragonEgg, assuming we'd still need the gfortran standard library anyway (in the short-medium term)? Or put another way, is there Fortran code out there we optimize poorly *because* of using DragonEgg? I haven't used DragonEgg much, so if

Hello, I was trying to run few testcases and see how llvm optmizes different scenarios. I have a small testcase like: #include <stdio.h> int a, b, c; int main() { a = b + c; c = a; if (a == b) b = c; else b = a; printf( " a = %d \n ", a ); return 0; } The corresponding llvm IR is ( clang test.c -S -emit-llvm -o -

Moving this to llvmdev - it needs a bit of a wider audience. There are several issues with phabricator, and in the current state of things there's a huge amount of confusion on how to even report problems, let alone try to resolve them. Recently I started a thread about empty emails, was directed to the phabricator project's bug tracker, and told there that LLVM has customized

Is there any rough idea when the LLVM 3.0 branch is going to occur? I have quite a bit of work on the PTX back-end I want to get committed before the branch, and I just want to get a rough idea on when it might happen so I can prioritize accordingly. -- Thanks, Justin Holewinski -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Since a, b, and c are globals, how does the optimize *know* they are not used elsewhere (e.g. another module)? On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 7:49 AM, Somenath Chakraborty <some.chak at gmail.com>wrote: > Hello, > > I was trying to run few testcases and see how llvm optmizes different > scenarios. I have a small testcase like: > > > #include <stdio.h> > > >

On May 19, 2008, at 9:13 PM, Razvan Aciu wrote: > I tested this pre-release on MSVC and I noted that none of the > submitted > patches (mine or others) were applied. > So the llvm 2.3 will not compile out of the box in MSVC? > Please provide me with a link to the patch(s) that need to be applied (llvm-commits archive email). I only apply patches that have been sent to me and

Pawel, We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but I think you should understand the implications of your actions. You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to the users of FreeBSD, Gentoo, etc. Even worse,

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 01:00:55PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > Brooks, > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:47:01PM -0600, Pawel Wodnicki wrote: > >> On 1/11/2013 2:40 PM, Brooks Davis wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:33:17PM +0100, Benjamin Kramer > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On 11.01.2013, at 21:31, Justin

Throwing this C++ code at the online demo: struct S { double d; unsigned u; }; S foo() { return S(); } produces this LLVM C++ API code: (...) PAListPtr func__Z3foov_PAL = 0; { SmallVector<ParamAttrsWithIndex, 4> Attrs; ParamAttrsWithIndex PAWI; PAWI.index = 0; PAWI.attrs = 0 | ParamAttr::NoUnwind; Attrs.push_back(PAWI); PAWI.index = 1; PAWI.attrs = 0 |

Just a reminder, please complete your testing by May 21st! Thanks, Tanya ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:25:41 -0700 From: Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> To: LLVM Developers Mailing List <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Subject: 2.3 Pre-release available for testing LLVMers, The 2.3 pre-release is available for testing:

Thank you! It seems like new changes in .rst files are picked up quickly now. -- Alex On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 7:33 PM Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > This should all be fixed now. > > Thanks, > Tanya > > > On Feb 14, 2019, at 9:50 AM, Tanya Lattner <tonic at nondot.org> wrote: > > Yes, I am working on it. The sub-projects are still having

Yes, I am working on it. The sub-projects are still having issues but the other documentation has been fixed. -Tanya > On Feb 14, 2019, at 3:53 AM, Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com> wrote: > > Tanya, friendly ping. > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 3:21 PM Alexander Kornienko <alexfh at google.com <mailto:alexfh at google.com>> wrote: > Hi Tanya, >

Hi Manuel, I like Phabricator for code review much much more than emails. Let me know how I can help (I’m not afraid of PHP). — Mehdi > On May 27, 2015, at 3:12 AM, Manuel Klimek <klimek at google.com> wrote: > > Quick update from IRC chat: > Justin (and anybody else who wants to) is going to file bugs against our phab workflow on the llvm-bugtracker until we get a

No. The demo is using 2.3. I update it personally after every release. Yes, it incorrectly says llvm2cpp, but its really using llc. I'll change this when I update it. The ReleaseNotes in TOT are for 2.4. -Tanya On Oct 17, 2008, at 10:52 PM, Óscar Fuentes wrote: > Throwing this C++ code at the online demo: > > struct S { > double d; > unsigned u; > }; > > S

Thanks for your reply. So, we don't do any "use" check (for globals variables) beyond a module scope. If so, it answers my question. On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Justin Holewinski < justin.holewinski at gmail.com> wrote: > Since a, b, and c are globals, how does the optimize *know* they are not > used elsewhere (e.g. another module)? > -------------- next part

Anton, > Pawel, > > We all understand that you're pretty new to release process, etc., but > I think you should understand the implications of your actions. > > You just created a lot of harm for really huge pile of users - the > ones who downloads the tarball via some automated build system and > rely on the known good checksum. This includes, but not limited to to

This is my patch for MSVC 2008 and it was applied by Chris: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20080512/062390.html I tested it and it is ok for the 2.3 release. Razvan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tanya Lattner" <tonic at nondot.org> To: "LLVM Developers Mailing List" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 7:40 AM

Justin Holewinski <justin.holewinski at gmail.com> writes: > int globalIndexY2 = get_group_id(1)*186 + 6*get_local_id(1) + 2 + 1; > bool valid2       = validX && globalIndexY2 >= 4 && globalIndexY2 < 3910; > > Clang, even at -O0, is performing short-circuit evaluation of these > expressions, resulting in a fair number of branch instructions being >