similar to: [llvm] r259255 - Need #include <cstdint> for uint64_t

DataTypes.h is transitively included through a lot of very common includes already. So its entirely possible AMDGPU and Hexagon are really including it. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 5:02 PM, mats petersson <mats at planetcatfish.com> wrote: > Sounds to me like including `DataTypes.h` would be the right choice, since > it will include `stdint.h` if it exists - and error if it doesn't,

On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:27 PM, Matthias Braun via llvm-commits < llvm-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > The point I was trying to make here is that all things that DataTypes.h > provides: > intXXX_t, uintXX_t, PRIdXX, INT64_MAX, HUGE_VAL, ssize_t ... > are all part of the C++11 standard and can be found in <cstdint>, <cmath> > (except for ssize_t) so I

There are two 64-bit bitmasks maintained in AttributeImpl.h<https://sdocc.itg.ti.com/ui#file:review=11893/version=393846>: - AvailableFunctionAttrs is part of the AttributeListImpl class, and - AvailableAttrs is part of the AttributeSetNode class Both of these assume that the number of available enum attributes is limited to 64. In fact, a static_assert in

In the llvm file include/llvm/Support/DataTypes.h (.in/.cmake), for MSVCit defines some macros that are defined in the cstdint.hpp file in boost (and boost does it better, detailed below): The basic error is: R:\SDKs\boost\built_head\include\boost-1_38\boost/cstdint.hpp(347) : warning C4005: 'INT8_C' : macro redefinition

In DataTypes.h starting on line 121 are these lines: #define INT8_C(C) C #define UINT8_C(C) C #define INT16_C(C) C #define UINT16_C(C) C #define INT32_C(C) C #define UINT32_C(C) C ## U #define INT64_C(C) ((int64_t) C ## LL) #define UINT64_C(C) ((uint64_t) C ## ULL) They are conflicting with the cstdint when we have updated headers in our MSVC build. I could have sworn I talked about this

LLVM's Attribute APIs need an overhaul. Current problems ================ First, testing for an attribute on an Argument is slow. llvm::AttributeSet::getAttributes(int) consumed 2% of cycles while optimizing llc during LTO. Our mid-level optimizations are constantly asking if a given argument has some attribute (nonnull, dereferencable, etc), and this is currently linear in the size of the

To the mailing list this time... On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:26 PM, OvermindDL1 <overminddl1 at gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 4:19 PM, José Fonseca <jose.r.fonseca at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> --- a/include/llvm/System/DataTypes.h.cmake >>>> +++ b/include/llvm/System/DataTypes.h.cmake >>>> @@ -100,6 +100,9 @@ typedef u_int64_t uint64_t;

On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 2:28 PM Tim Shen <timshen at google.com> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 8, 2017 at 1:49 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > So I stumbled across an issue that I think is a bit fundamental: > > The xray runtime uses the C++ standard library. > > This seems like a problem because whatever C++ standard library is used to > compile the

Attached are two patches with MSVC build enchancements. They are quite trivial, but were necessary to correctly link LLVM libraries with Mesa3D on Windows. Jose -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0001-Allow-to-build-against-static-MSVC-runtime.patch Type: text/x-patch Size: 2055 bytes Desc: not available URL:

Hi everyone! I'm trying compile an compiler project that uses LLVM 2.9, and I'm having difficult with the error "Don't have a definition for uint64_t on this platform". I set the '__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS' and '__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS' defines, and save the "DataTypes.h.in" as "DataTypes.h", to compiler can locate them. I'm using

On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 11:52 PM, geovanisouza92 at gmail.com < geovanisouza92 at gmail.com> wrote: > I set the '__STDC_LIMIT_MACROS' and '__STDC_CONSTANT_MACROS' defines, and > save the "DataTypes.h.in" as "DataTypes.h", to compiler can locate them. > Don't do this, it's wrong. The "DataTypes.h" should be created from "

On Mon, May 29, 2017 at 9:25 AM Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 8:54 PM Mehdi AMINI via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> 2017-05-26 17:47 GMT-07:00 Zachary Turner via llvm-dev < >> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>: >> >>> Changing a header file somewhere and having to

A quite small but yet complete example function which all vectorization passes fail to optimize: #include <cstdint> #include <iostream> void bar(std::uint64_t start, std::uint64_t end, float * __restrict__ c, float * __restrict__ a, float * __restrict__ b) { for ( std::uint64_t i = start ; i < end ; i += 4 ) { { const std::uint64_t ir0 = (i+0)%4 + 8*((i+0)/4);

Hi Frank, This loop should be vectorized by the SLP-vectorizer. It has several scalars (C[0], C[1] … ) that can be merged into a vector. The SLP vectorizer can’t figure out that the stores are consecutive because SCEV can’t analyze the OR in the index calculation: %2 = and i64 %i.04, 3 %3 = lshr i64 %i.04, 2 %4 = shl i64 %3, 3 %5 = or i64 %4, %2 %11 = getelementptr inbounds float*

On Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:10 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:32, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > I agree that we should clean up the standard library usage even just for > consistency. > > > > +1 -- now that I think about it, it should be fairly doable

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 5:34 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: > On 13 Mar 2017, at 15:39, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sun, Mar 12, 2017, 4:10 PM Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On 9 Mar 2017, at 09:32, David Blaikie via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at

So I stumbled across an issue that I think is a bit fundamental: The xray runtime uses the C++ standard library. This seems like a problem because whatever C++ standard library is used to compile the XRay runtime may not be the same as the C++ standard library (if any) that is used to build the target application and link XRay into. Does this make sense? Is this a problem? Talking to Chandler

----- Original Message ----- > > Hi Nadav, > > that's the whole point of it. I can't in general make the index > calculation simpler. The example given is the simplest non-trivial > index function that is needed. It might well be that it's that > simple that the index calculation in this case can be thrown aways > altogether and - as you say - be replaced by

Hi Nadav, that's the whole point of it. I can't in general make the index calculation simpler. The example given is the simplest non-trivial index function that is needed. It might well be that it's that simple that the index calculation in this case can be thrown aways altogether and - as you say - be replaced by the simple loop you mentioned. However, this cannot be done in the

On 31/10/13 13:34, Hal Finkel wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> Hi Nadav, >> >> that's the whole point of it. I can't in general make the index >> calculation simpler. The example given is the simplest non-trivial >> index function that is needed. It might well be that it's that >> simple that the index calculation in this case can be