similar to: [LLVMdev] "distinct" metadata nodes are ...?

Displaying 20 results from an estimated 4000 matches similar to: "[LLVMdev] "distinct" metadata nodes are ...?"

2015 Apr 06
2
[LLVMdev] "distinct" metadata nodes are ...?
Aha, okay. I had noticed that the column-info hack went away. So the distinct-ness implies the scope implicit in the inlined call, which later on will be turned into the explicit inlined_subroutine entry. That seems… indirect. I have to say, the LangRef page's words about "merge based on content" is not really to the point. It's like saying the purpose of a street-corner
2016 Dec 15
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
> On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. > > To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were
2016 Dec 15
1
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:35 AM Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > > On Dec 15, 2016, at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable > representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related > changes that have
2016 Dec 15
6
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. To reduce duplicate debug info when things like linkonce_odr functions were deduplicated in LTO linking, the relationship between a CU and DISubprogram was inverted (instead of a CU maintaining a list
2016 Dec 15
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to DIGlobalVariable > representations that Adrian's working on - got me thinking about related > changes that have already been made to DISubprogram. > > To reduce duplicate
2016 Dec 15
2
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) > Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here. > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 10:54 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > Branching off from a discussion of improvements to
2016 Dec 23
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there was a cu: link). - It helped to fix long-standing bugs in the IRLinker, where uniqued-DISubprograms in different compile
2016 Dec 15
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) >> > > Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here. > > >> >> On Thu, Dec
2016 Dec 23
2
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith < dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: > A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses > below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). > > Firstly, why *should* DISubprogram definitions be distinct? There were > two reasons this was valuable (this was from before there
2016 Dec 24
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
> On Dec 23, 2016, at 18:36, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Dec 23, 2016 at 11:47 AM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> A few disjoint thoughts; sorry they're so delayed (I skimmed the responses below, and I think these are still relevant/not covered elsewhere). >> >> Firstly, why
2016 Dec 15
2
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: Trying to wrap my brain around this, so a few questions below. =) Sure thing - sorry, did assume a bit too much arcane context here.
2016 Dec 16
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:26 AM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: >
2016 Dec 16
2
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 11:38 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On
2016 Dec 16
0
distinct DISubprograms hindering sharing inlined subprogram descriptions
On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:20 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 4:17 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com> > wrote: > >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 2:08 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Dec 15, 2016 at 1:30 PM Teresa Johnson <tejohnson at google.com>
2015 Sep 03
3
Testing "normal" cross-compilers versus GPU backends
On Thu, Sep 03, 2015 at 02:07:54AM -0700, Mehdi Amini wrote: > > > On Sep 3, 2015, at 12:18 AM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Mehdi Amini [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] > >> Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 7:10 PM > >> To: Robinson,
2015 Sep 03
3
Testing "normal" cross-compilers versus GPU backends
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Tom Stellard [mailto:tom at stellard.net] >> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 7:31 AM >> To: Mehdi Amini >> Cc: Robinson, Paul; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; NAKAMURA Takumi >> Subject: Re: Testing
2016 Mar 30
5
[cfe-dev] RFC: Up front type information generation in clang and llvm
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:20 PM Robinson, Paul < Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > Skipping a serialization and doing something clever about LTO uniquing > sounds awesome. I'm guessing you achieve this by extracting types out of > DI metadata and packaging them as lumps-o-DWARF that the back-end can then > paste together? Reading between the lines a bit
2015 Nov 18
3
RFC: Supporting all entities declared in lexical scope in LLVM debug info
Hi, I would like to implement a fix to how LLVM handles/creates debug info for entities declared inside a basic block. Below you will find 5 parts: 1. Motivation for this fix. 2. Background explaining the cases that need to be fixed. 3. An example for each case. 4. Proposal on how to represent each case in dwarf. 5. Secondary (workaround) proposal which might be
2015 Sep 04
4
Testing "normal" cross-compilers versus GPU backends
> On Sep 3, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com> wrote: > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mehdi Amini [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] >> Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 3:26 PM >> To: Robinson, Paul >> Cc: Tom Stellard; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; NAKAMURA Takumi >> Subject: Re: Testing
2016 Apr 01
2
[cfe-dev] RFC: Up front type information generation in clang and llvm
> On Mar 31, 2016, at 7:11 PM, David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Eric Christopher via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:20 PM Robinson, Paul <Paul_Robinson at playstation.sony.com