similar to: [LLVMdev] Continuing PR5680: preserve order of use lists in bitcode

> On 2014-Jul-08, at 16:48, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at google.com> wrote: > > >> On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <duncan at exonsmith.com> wrote: >> I'm looking to tackle PR5680 [1]. The primary goal is to prevent >> behaviour changes in passes that depend on the order of use lists when >> serializing/deserializing the

I had a long discussion with Nick about this where he changed several of my core assumptions and feelings about the best way to proceed here. I'd rather he provide his perspective rather me try to repeat it, so poking him on this thread.... On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2014 Jul 8, at 18:47, Duncan P. N.

> On 2015-Apr-09, at 11:06, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > Late to the party because I figured other people would chime in, but I'll have a go... > > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > A while back I finished up some work [1] that Chad started to preserve > use-list-order in bitcode

> On 2015-Apr-10, at 09:12, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 12:37 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > > > On 2015-Apr-09, at 11:06, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Late to the party because I figured other people would chime in, but I'll have a

Pete Cooper and I have been looking at memory profiles of running llc on verify-uselistorder.lto.opt.bc (ld -save-temps dump just before CodeGen of building verify-uselistorder with -flto -g). I've attached leak-backend.patch, which we're using to make Intrustruments more accurate (instead of effectively leaking things onto BumpPtrAllocators, really leak them with malloc()). (I've

Forgot cc, the entire group. How can deterministically iterate over the uses of a variable. i.e. the uses should be any particular order that doesn't change from execution to execution of the opt tool. To make myself more clearer, here is a snippet of code that has Values reordered each time I analyze a particular piece of code(which doesn't change) with the LLVM opt tool and my LLVM

A while back I finished up some work [1] that Chad started to preserve use-list-order in bitcode [2], hidden behind an "experimental" option called `-preserve-bc-use-list-order`. I then added a similar `-preserve-ll-use-list-order` option for LLVM assembly [3]. [1]: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2014-July/074604.html [2]: https://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=5680 [3]:

I''m just wondering. Is there an easy way to take a hash that I have and store it in a DB text column and then read it as a hash from it again. The reason is that I have a db table called contents. But it stores all kinds of information and even data that I do not know of yet. I know I could store it inside the text column using XML or YAML or something else but then I would have to

Moving this to llvm-dev where I should've sent it in the first place (& +Chandler, because we discussed this offline a bit) On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 11:32 AM, Reid Kleckner <rnk at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:57 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 8:31 AM, Rafael Espíndola <

Hello, A strange problem appears when upgrading from release_34 to testing. Some transformations to bitcode files cause registered global_ctors to not be called. Here's an example (I've also attached the complete example and pasted it below): This works: clang -fsanitize=address -flto -c -o sum.o sum.c clang -fsanitize=address -o sum sum.o This doesn't work: clang

I'd like to evaluate a couple of extensions to a C-like language, and I was hoping to use Clang and LLVM to do that. I ran into a couple of issues, and I'd appreciate if you could advise on the best practices to address them. -1- I modified Clang parser to accept the extension syntax (say a property for a function, statement, parameter, or variable), but how do I propagate the state

> On May 19, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com <mailto:resistor at mac.com>> wrote: > >> On May 19, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Neil Henning <llvm at duskborn.com <mailto:llvm at duskborn.com>> wrote: >> >> The 'backend' in

All, There seems to be a hullaboo about a vulnerability in R when deserializing untrusted data: https://hiddenlayer.com/research/r-bitrary-code-execution https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-27322 https://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/238194 Apparently a fix was made for R 4.4.0, but I see no mention of it in the changes report: https://cloud.r-project.org/bin/windows/base/NEWS.R-4.4.0.html

> On May 20, 2015, at 7:13 AM, Neil Henning <llvm at duskborn.com> wrote: > > On 20/05/15 08:37, Owen Anderson wrote: >> >>> On May 19, 2015, at 7:32 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com <mailto:chisophugis at gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at

On 7/23/2013 1:36 PM, Jim Grosbach wrote: > > This isn’t just a nitpick. This is exactly why you’re seeing > differences. The pass managers aren’t always set up the same, for example. > > FWIW, I feel your pain. This is a long-standing weakness of our > infrastructure. What was the motivation for this design? Was it to save time by not creating another process, or were there

Hi all, I tried to poke my head into opt-report a while ago and didn't get very far. Now I'm looking at it again. I'm not sure I understand everything that's in place so my question here may be misguided. I'm trying to understand the way strings are handled. When a remark is emitted, it seems that the string is constructed on the fly based on streaming inputs. For example,

James, Thanks for the detailed response. Please see my thoughts inline. On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 12:33 AM James Henderson < jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > Hi Rahman, > > Traditionally, the ability to read sections is a feature added to > llvm-readobj/llvm-readelf. For some sections, it delegates to methods in > places like the Object library and BinaryFormat, but

> On May 19, 2015, at 9:48 AM, Neil Henning <llvm at duskborn.com> wrote: > > The 'backend' in this context is purely so that we can then enable Clang to target SPIR-V in the same consistent manner to all the other targets it supports. This seems like a terrible reason to choose the architecture of how it’s implemented in LLVM. The clang driver is part of the LLVM

On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Peter Collingbourne via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Re-sending with trimmed quotation. > > On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Peter Collingbourne <peter at pcc.me.uk> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 3:29 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >>>

With just those four patches, memory usage went *up* slightly. Add in the 5th patch (which does #2 below), and we get an overall memory drop of 4%. The intermediate result of a memory increase makes sense. While the first four patches reduce the number of (and size of) `DIEValue` allocations, they increase the cost of the `SmallVector` overhead. 0005 (attached) squeezes the abbreviation data