similar to: [LLVMdev] [RFC] 3-bit Waymarking

On 4/22/14, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 22, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Gabor Greif <ggreif at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi devs, >> >> after my intentionally "playful" EuroLLVM presentation (*) I think it >> would be time to get serious about merging to ToT. But we should >> probably find out whether an optimized

Hi llvm-dev, I have a patch open for review that removes waymarking https://reviews.llvm.org/D77144. This patch removes waymarking and replaces it with storing a pointer to the User in the Use. when compiling the CTMark tests of the test suite, this give an average of +1.8% max memory use and -1.1% compile time. Removing Waymarking also simplifies the code of Use and User. Any thought?

I'm in favor for this change. I've also done some testing myself and noticed only about 1-2% increase of memory, in exchange for about 1-3% increase of speed. I can't say that a speedup of 3% (at most, and usually 1%), worth working for, this is a simple change, that give a lot more than this; especially simpler code path (also easier debugging). As part of my measurements, while

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - >> are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? >> >> I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; >> especially when we

Yes please. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 5:02 AM Tyker1 at outlook.com via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > a bit of time has passed and there to my knowledge still no strong > arguments against removing it. > is everyone OK to proceed with the removal ? > > Gauthier > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> >

Hi all, can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? After following all the instructions, make gets stuck while: ggreif$ gmake gmake \ CFLAGS="-g -W -Wall -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wold-style-definition -Wmissing-format-attribute -fno-common " \ CONFIG_H="config.h auto-host.h

Hi All, here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is *active*. The User* inside of Use is even sometimes NULL, but the algorithm is able to recover it. If there is a non-null User* present, then I am asserting that it equals the computed value. I did not receive feedback for the algorithmic part yet, so I

On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com>wrote: > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> >

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > can anybody confirm that llvm-gcc is broken? It builds for me on x86, darwin8 (svn rev: 50048). What are you using to configure it? Whenever I have had problems building llvm-gcc, I usually have to delete my install and obj dir, make clean llvm, and start over from the top. Its a pain, but it works usually. -Tanya > >

Benjamin Kramer wrote: > On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from >> a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been >> biten by a Linux bug, and

On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into > our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from > a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been > biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives >

Chandler Carruth wrote: > On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Benjamin Kramer <benny.kra at gmail.com > <mailto:benny.kra at gmail.com>> wrote: > > > On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com > <mailto:gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com>> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kramer wrote: > >> On 13.07.2012,

Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even

On 13.07.2012, at 21:39, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: > Benjamin Kramer wrote: >> On 13.07.2012, at 09:46, Gabor Greif <gabor.greif at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into >>> our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run

Hi PPC folks, as of v3.3 the integrated assembler seems to work fine. But it is not on by default. What is the obstacle for this last step? Just curious, Gabor

I do not consider PR1546 closed just yet. What I mentioned in the PR was only two of ca. 140 Solaris failures. Most of them complain that llc cannot choose between C and MSIL output formats. The below prototypical patch corrects this type of failure. Is this the right way of handling it? Why does llc only fail on Solaris and not on Darwin? After I understood this problem I am happy to commit

heisenbug wrote: > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > ... > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test >>> passes with this patch :) >>> >> I have never run llvm-test in the past. Is it just checking it out and >> following a readme? >> > > > After

Hi all, I am in charge of the controlled introduction of clang into our builds at my workplace. Since all our tools must run from a ClearCase view for automatic dependency tracking, we have been biten by a Linux bug, and readlink("/proc/self/exe", ...) gives nonsensical results. So we need to introduce a configure option for disallowing this method of executable discovery (the other one

On Fri, 4 Apr 2008, heisenbug wrote: >> point taken. thanks! > > > Whatever I try I get something like this: > > ggreif$ cd MultiSource/ > ggreif$ make > make[2]: *** No rule to make target `Output/be.bc', needed by `Output/ > burg.linked.rbc'. Stop. > make[1]: *** [Burg/.makeall] Error 2 > make: *** [Applications/.makeall] Error 2 This is the

On Apr 4, 8:06 pm, heisenbug <ggr... at gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 4, 7:51 pm, Török Edwin <edwinto... at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > heisenbug wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:53 pm, Gabor Greif <ga... at mac.com> wrote: > > > ... > > > >>> 3) Make sure that make check and some reasonable subset of llvm-test > > >>>