similar to: [LLVMdev] LLVM use chains

On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > Hi, > I have: > ... > @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a > function\0A\00", align 1 > ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable > define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { > entry: > %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x > i8]* @.str1, i32 0,

On 10/24/13 2:13 AM, Rafael Espíndola wrote: > On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> I have: >> ... >> @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a >> function\0A\00", align 1 >> ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable >> define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { >> entry: >> %call =

+Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical +design. The project description stresses code maintainability and logical design more than bug finding due to omissions in copy and pasted code. Reading this made me think of a check that would suggest people to replace copy and pasted code with a function

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >> +Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of >> +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical >> +design. > Should be better now. >> >> The project description stresses

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 10/03/15 19:13, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch <mailto:vvasilev at cern.ch>> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >>>> >>>> +Easily, some of the code

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm right,

Hello, I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html ) I hope that everything is fine now. -Jakub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pr2218-3.patch Type: application/octet-stream Size: 7511 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hey everyone, I'm currently trying to figure out a method for providing a unique identification of an llvm::Instruction that is consistent with the output of an AssemblyWriter. Obviously this is easy for named instructions: In this case the identification is the name itself, but I'd like to have the same thing for unnamed instructions. If I understand the code in AssemblyWriter.cpp

Hi, I need a data structure which has fast search and I can walk it forward and backward. Is there something like that in LLVM ADT which am not aware of? And if not can I implement it in llvm::DenseSet? Vassil

On Jul 25, 2009, at 4:48 PM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > Sorry for my stupid mistakes. I hope that everything is fine now. > This patch fixes PR2218. There are no loads in example, however > "instcombine" changes memcpy() into store/load. Hi Jakub, Sorry for the delay, I'm way behind on code review. Generally if you respond quickly, I'll remember

On Sep 2, 2009, at 1:07 AM, Jakub Staszak wrote: > Hello, > > I fixed my patch as you asked. Sorry for the delay, I'd been working > on my SSU patch (http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2009-August/025347.html > ) > > I hope that everything is fine now. Hey Jakub, Thanks for working on this again, one more round :) Please merge the three testcases into one

Reverse iteration doesn't really make sense for DenseSet, since its iteration order isn't meaningful to begin with... --Owen On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Vassil Vassilev wrote: > Hi, > I need a data structure which has fast search and I can walk it > forward and backward. Is there something like that in LLVM ADT which am > not aware of? And if not can I implement it in

Something that might interest you is the SetVector, which as its name implies is both a set and a vector paired together. You get the advantage of doing set-like operations (search) on the set and vector-like operations (iteration, random access) on the vector, but at the cost of paying the price for both data structures when modifying the structure (and double the memory). This seems like it

Please provide a patch to Open Projects list. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > On 17/02/15 09:47, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> John, >> >> Yes, I'm taking care about application as usual. > > I saw the the LLVM mentoring org was accepted. Congrats! > Anton, could you tell me what is the procedure of

UniqueVector is an stl map coupled with an stl vector[1], which seems very undesirable for you. As far as SmallVector + slow search, I believe that is precisely what the implementation of SmallSet does until it has to grow, after which it uses an stl set[2]. If you're always staying within your small number, SmallSetVector would be wasteful as the SmallSet would itself also have a SmallVector.

Hi folks, Happy new year! Last LLVM Developers' Meeting I had a BoF: 'Raising Next Generation LLVM Developers'. It was suggested that we should update our open projects page and possibly restructure it a little bit. I volunteered to do this work and I need your help. Chandler and I started working on a google doc [1]. We pinged few code owners asking them to list of

Dear community, We are trying to setup a BoF ( Raising Next Generation of LLVM Developers, http://sched.co/8Yzs). In our academic-oriented environments the main work force is students: undergrads, grads or PhD (rarely postdocs). Often we have limited time to bring somebody up to speed and we have to it in a productive and motivating for both parties way. I believe most of you had

Hi Matthias, Thanks a lot for the project. Could you put it in the google doc below? I'd appreciate if you could follow more-or-less the format. Are you going to be the mentor. Cheers, Vassil On 06/02/17 19:29, Matthias Braun wrote: > Here's another one: > > = Improve code generation testing = > > After instruction selection LLVM uses the MI (Machine Instruction)

I am trying to parse LLVM IR from a bit code file. I went through the following steps. hello.cpp #include <iostream> int main() { std::cout << "Hello world!" << "\n"; return 0;} dump.cpp #include <llvm/IR/Module.h>#include <llvm/IRReader/IRReader.h>#include <llvm/IR/LLVMContext.h>#include <llvm/Support/SourceMgr.h> using

The list can't ommit clang-tidy. There are many ideas about new checks on llvm bugzilla. https://llvm.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=clang-tools-extra&component=clang-tidy&resolution=---&list_id=110936 Everything matching ".*Feature Request.*" Piotr 2017-01-16 21:31 GMT+01:00 Sean Silva via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Do we have any open projects on