Displaying 20 results from an estimated 10000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] Removing types from metadata"
2014 Dec 10
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>> The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the
>> C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get
>> for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces.
>>
2014 Dec 10
4
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
The `Metadata`/`Value` split (PR21532) landed in r223802 -- at least, the
C++ side of it. This was a rocky day, but I suppose that's what I get
for failing to stage the change in smaller pieces.
As of r223916 (lldb), I'm not aware of any remaining (in-tree) breakage,
so if I've missed some problem in the sea of buildbot errors, please
flag me down.
I'll follow up soon with
2014 Dec 10
3
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
> On 2014 Dec 10, at 14:08, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 11:21:08AM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014 Dec 10, at 08:40, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 09, 2014 at 09:22:16PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
>>>> The `Metadata`/`Value`
2014 Dec 11
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 05:27:45PM -0800, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith wrote:
> +zalman at google.com
>
Hi Duncan,
This patch plus another small change fixes the assertion failure for
me. With the patch alone, the void* overload of addGarbageObject()
was being used by MDNode::getTemporary(), so I had to cast the object as
an MDNode*:
diff --git a/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp b/lib/IR/Metadata.cpp
2014 Dec 11
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata/Value split has landed
I committed:
r224058 = 966942da9e68b59c31ce770e7f94c55a63482c6b
r224060 = da75f7277e3a129aed8ef8aa4e0d84de40b76fd4
r224061 = f88e4c8e9171045454b2c8e05054c2af8da3fe4f
Let me know if somehow you're still hitting the problem.
r224061 removes leak detection entirely from `MachineInstr`. There aren't
any leaks to be had there, since they're allocated in a custom allocator.
They're
2016 Oct 07
2
Is extern_weak a legal linkage for function definitions?
Hi,
The LLVM language reference doesn't say that extern_weak is illegal for
function definitions, but it seems this restriction is enforced in the
code in some places:
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp#L4591
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm/blob/master/lib/CodeGen/AsmPrinter/AsmPrinter.cpp#L327
However it is possible to create a bitcode file
2014 Dec 05
2
[LLVMdev] Vectorize Patches for 3.5.1 (was Re: Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1)
On Wed, Dec 03, 2014 at 11:51:07AM -0800, Michael Zolotukhin wrote:
> Hi Tom,
>
> I also have several patches that might be useful in 3.5.1. They all are stability fixes:
>
> r221009: Correctly update dom-tree after loop vectorizer.
> r222451: Fix a trip-count overflow issue in LoopUnroll.
> r223170 and r223171: PR21302.Vectorize only bottom-tested loops.
>
Hi Arnold,
2013 Nov 27
4
[LLVMdev] Bug in Language Reference? %0 versus %1 as starting index.
The language reference states that local temporaries begin with index 0,
but if I try that on my not-entirely-up-to-date v3.4 llc (it is like a week
old), I get an error "instruction expected to be numbered '%1'".
Also, quite a few examples in the LR uses %0 as a local identifier.
Should I fix those or is it a problem in llc?
-- Mikael
-------------- next part --------------
2014 Dec 02
2
[LLVMdev] Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1
On Sat, Nov 29, 2014 at 08:34:34PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 29 Nov 2014, at 02:48, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 07:44:20PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> ...
> >> I would like to propose the following additional patches for 3.5.1. These will already be part of the upcoming clang 3.5.0 import into the FreeBSD 11.0 base
2012 May 07
6
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
Hi Duncan,
On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
> Hi Ralf,
>
>> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or
>> BasicBlocks?
>
> not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality!
I am looking into that now.
I decided to temporarily go for the following syntax for BasicBlock
metadata (subject to discussion):
entry:
2014 Dec 19
1
[LLVMdev] Removing types from metadata
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 12:56 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <
dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
> However, I think this would set a bad precedent. There's nowhere else
> (that I know of) where we accept two versions of assembly. The
> LLParser is relatively easy to work with because it doesn't have that
> kind of historical baggage.
I can think of two precedents:
2010 Feb 11
0
[LLVMdev] Metadata
On Wednesday 10 February 2010 14:58:58 Dan Gohman wrote:
> On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:42 PM, David Greene wrote:
> > On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:58:25 Chris Lattner wrote:
> >> I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make
> >> sense.
> >
> > Ok. The consequence is that a number of functions will have to change to
> > propagate
2010 Feb 10
3
[LLVMdev] Metadata
On Feb 10, 2010, at 12:42 PM, David Greene wrote:
> On Wednesday 10 February 2010 12:58:25 Chris Lattner wrote:
>
>> I think that adding a bit to LoadSDNode and StoreSDNode would make sense.
>
> Ok. The consequence is that a number of functions will have to change to
> propagate this bit, analogous to what happens with isVolatile. It's
> essentially what we do
2012 May 07
0
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
On May 7, 2012, at 7:21 AM, Ralf Karrenberg <Chareos at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> On 5/6/12 6:12 PM, Duncan Sands wrote:
>> Hi Ralf,
>>
>>> Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or
>>> BasicBlocks?
>>
>> not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality!
>
> I am looking into that
2010 Jan 18
5
[LLVMdev] [patch] Union Types - work in progress
On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote:
> OK here's the patch for real this time :)
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
> Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test
> "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this
> in as is. However, I'd be interested in any
2010 Sep 29
3
[LLVMdev] Associating types directly with debug metadata?
We would need to access the LLVM debug metadata type information directly from LLVM types. It looks like the current clang and llvm-gcc don't support such an association, nor appears the LLVM itself do. (We are tracking TOT, but only once a month or so.)
In terms of LLVM IR, apparantly this would simply mean optionally adding another metadata value to each type. For example, let us have a
2012 May 08
2
[LLVMdev] Metadata for Argument, BasicBlock
If we were to implement the #unroll pragma, we would want to add metadata to loop headers. But, it's not a big deal since we can simply add this metadata to block terminators.
-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Dan Gohman
Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2012 00:58
To: Ralf Karrenberg
Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu List
2010 Nov 09
1
[LLVMdev] uninitialized value warnings: LLVMParser.cpp
These warnings started appearing recently when building LLVM:
llvm[2]: Compiling LLParser.cpp for Release build
/Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp: In member function ‘bool llvm::LLParser::ParseBr(llvm::Instruction*&, llvm::LLParser::PerFunctionState&)’:
/Volumes/Data/Users/kremenek/llvm/lib/AsmParser/LLParser.cpp:3195: warning: ‘Op1’ may be used uninitialized in
2014 Nov 29
17
[LLVMdev] Proposed patches for Clang 3.5.1
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 07:44:20PM +0100, Dimitry Andric wrote:
> On 26 Nov 2014, at 16:50, Tom Stellard <tom at stellard.net> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 10:15:13AM +0000, Daniel Sanders wrote:
> ...
> > I will try to look at the patches today. I'm going to delay the release a week
> > or so, because of all the merge requests I've received,
2010 Jan 28
0
[LLVMdev] [patch] Union Types - work in progress
OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually
passes :)
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
>
> On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote:
>
> OK here's the patch for real this time :)
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Here's a work