similar to: Managed Languages BOF @ Dev Meeting

I won’t be able to attend, but I’d be interested in hearing if any conclusions are reached on several of these topics: > On 16 Oct 2015, at 21:27, Joe Ranieri via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > - Dealing with the explosion of basic blocks that come up with > languages where almost every function call, implicit and explicit, can > raise exceptions. This

On Oct 16, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Joe Ranieri via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > I'm planning on attending. You've mentioned some of these, but > specific topics of interest for me include: > - Dealing with the explosion of basic blocks that come up with > languages where almost every function call, implicit and explicit, can > raise exceptions. I saw this

On 18 Oct 2015, at 23:08, Sanjoy Das <sanjoy at playingwithpointers.com> wrote: > > Supporting only basic block level granularity for "try ranges" may not > be sufficient for Java -- if a basic block has more than one null check > in it then throwing the NullPtrException for the first null check (if > it fails) is semantically different from throwing the

Dear community, In preparation for the BoF on Parallel IR at the US developers meeting we would like to collect feedback from the whole community. The concerns, ideas, etc. will be summarized in the BoF and should provide a good starting point for a discussion. We know that over the years the topic of a parallel extension for LLVM was discussed on the mailing list [0, 1, 2], workshops [3, 4] or

The BOF in the subject line is a "Birds Of a Feather" meeting. This is a chance for people who normally only get the chance to communicate via e-mail to actually sit down and talk to each other in person. I plan to be at the Joint Statistical Meetings in Dallas in August. If you will be attending and would be interested in getting together with some other R folks, please e-mail me and

Hi all, I'm organizing a BoF session during the upcoming EuroLLVM developers meeting. As the subject of this message already shows, this session will be on compilers in education. I'm currently looking for both participants to the discussion and input for the actual program of the session. I've already got some ideas which I'll introduce below. At our university, we mostly

Hi Nadav, Unfortunately I'm not attending the dev meeting, but the BoF looks interesting. One thing that I'd like to throw into the mix is that, while dealing with autovectorisation of LLVM compiled down from C-like languages (or maybe Fortran-like languages) is clearly a very big area for fruitful work both algorithmically and in terms of practical relevance, it'd also be interesting

Mike Edwards and I will be hosting a talk/BOF called "Living Downstream Without Drowning" which is for anyone maintaining a bunch of local changes to Clang/LLVM/etc. We will present some procedures and tactics we've evolved at Sony, including patch tactics for reducing merge pain, and how we are throwing automation at the problem. But we are really curious what YOU have done

We are in desperate need of volunteers to moderate the sessions during the LLVM Developers Meeting. If you are attending and can act as moderator for a group of talks, please let us know. We need 5 more volunteers to moderate the following sessions. Please note your first choice session to moderate and your second choice: Session #1 (11:05-12:35): Integrating LLVM into FreeBSD: Brooks Davis –

We are looking for a volunteer to lead a Testing BoF at next month's LLVM Dev Meeting. Testing was a popular topic in the responses to the LLVM Dev Meeting registration questionnaire. It also seems to be a recent theme on LLVMdev. A Testing BoF should seek to better describe the issues, identify any interest or actual work in addressing the issues, and foster potential collaboration.

I can do this, if nobody has volunteered yet. Cheers, Andrei On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Kipping, David <dkipping at qualcomm.com> wrote: > We are looking for a volunteer to lead a Testing BoF at next month's LLVM > Dev Meeting. Testing was a popular topic in the responses to the LLVM Dev > Meeting registration questionnaire. It also seems to be a recent theme on >

Hi David! On Nov 6, 2012, at 3:23 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nadav, > > Unfortunately I'm not attending the dev meeting, but the BoF looks interesting. One thing that I'd like to throw into the mix is that, while dealing with autovectorisation of LLVM compiled down from C-like languages (or maybe Fortran-like languages) is clearly a very big

Dear all, please find below the meeting notes form the Polly BoF (as taken by Michael Kruse). Comments and feedback is very much appreciated. Best, Tobias Status update * Polly late in pipeline * Uses TargetTransformInfo * Part of the release process * isl: C++ interface, MIT licenced, improved scheduler * Polly integration plan; result: isl and Polly available in each build * Better

On Oct 17, 2009, at 1:32 AM, Owen Anderson wrote: > Chris, > > On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: >> Unfortunately, we found out at the last minute that Apple has a rule >> which prevents its engineers from giving video taped talks or >> distributing slides. We will hold onto the video and slide assets in >> case this rule changes in the future.

On 20 August 2014 00:24, Gerolf Hoflehner <ghoflehner at apple.com> wrote: > My experience from leading BOFs at other conferences is more talk than action. So I suggest a different setup for this topic: how about having a working group meeting with participants who can commit time to work on this topic? Mine too, but in this case I have to say it wasn't at all what happened. It

Chris, On Oct 15, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > Unfortunately, we found out at the last minute that Apple has a rule > which prevents its engineers from giving video taped talks or > distributing slides. We will hold onto the video and slide assets in > case this rule changes in the future. While I'm glad to know we all share similar sentiments on this, lots of

Hello, I have been using the USE class to access the use-def chains of different values. However, what I have noticed is that the set of users of a particular value is limited for the appearance of that variable in the current function. How can I get the interprocedural use of a particular value? For example, if a variable *a* is used as an argument in a function call *foo*, the USE analysis

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Nadav Rotem" <nrotem at apple.com> > To: "David Tweed" <david.tweed at gmail.com> > Cc: llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu > Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 11:08:23 AM > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Regarding BOF: Vectorization in LLVM > > Hi David! > > On Nov 6, 2012, at 3:23 AM, David Tweed <david.tweed at

On 2 August 2014 00:40, Renato Golin <renato.golin at linaro.org> wrote: > If memory serves me well (it doesn't), these are the list of things we > agreed on making, and their progress: > > 1. Performance-specific test-suite: a group of specific benchmarks > that should be tracked with the LNT infrastructure. Hal proposed to > look at this, but other people helped

Hi All, The 2020 Virtual LLVM Developer's Meeting is coming up the week after next. I'll be hosting a JIT Birds-of-a-Feather session on Thursday the 8th at 10:55am PDT (See http://llvm.org/devmtg/2020-09/schedule/). I'm planning to run this more like a Round Table: Minimal introduction, plenty of time for discussion. Does anyone have any LLVM JIT related topics that they would