similar to: Move InlineCost.cpp out of Analysis?

> On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:07 PM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Easwaran Raman" <eraman at google.com> >> To: "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> >> Cc: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com>, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> wrote: > The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but > about what the code *does*. > > Code for mutating the IR should be in Transforms, and code that analyzes > the IR without mutating it should be in Analysis. This is why, for example, > InstructionSimplify is in

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> wrote: > > On Apr 18, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> The difference between Analysis and Transforms is *not* about passes, but >> about what

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>>

On 04/18/2016 04:05 PM, Easwaran Raman via llvm-dev wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:25 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com > <mailto:chandlerc at gmail.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:20 PM Easwaran Raman <eraman at google.com > <mailto:eraman at google.com>> wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM,

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel" > <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:31:05 PM

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > wrote: >> >> In the current case at stake: the issue is that we can't make the >>

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > To: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "via llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 5:45:21 PM

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chandler Carruth" <chandlerc at gmail.com> > To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> > Cc: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>, "via llvm-dev" > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>, "Xinliang David Li" <davidxl at google.com> > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 4:54:36 PM

On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:45 PM Xinliang David Li <davidxl at google.com> wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 3:00 PM, Chandler Carruth <chandlerc at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 2:48 PM Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> *From:

There's a problem with LLVM version 2.5 compiled under G++ 4.1.2 which involves computing the cost of inlining a function. It works fine in a debug build. However, the Release build seems to tickle a g++ bug. Here is the code, from InlineCost.h: class InlineCost { enum Kind { Value, Always, Never }; int Cost : 30; unsigned Type : 2; InlineCost(int

Gautam Sewani wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > >> Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are >> not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while >> the other is not. >> I've run into this, too. The problem is that the inliner pass uses a 30 bit integer to store the inline

Hi Gael, I tried converting to your approach but I had some issues making sure that all symbols accessed by the jit modules have entries in the dynamic symbol table. To be specific, my current approach is to use MCJIT (using an objectcache) to JIT the runtime module and then let MCJIT handle linking any references from the jit'd modules; I just experimented with what I think you're doing,

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM, John Criswell <criswell at cs.uiuc.edu> wrote: > Gautam Sewani wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: >> >>> Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are >>> not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while >>> the other is not. >>> >

On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM, Duncan Sands <baldrick at free.fr> wrote: > Hi, the versions of llvm-gcc and llvm you are using are > not synchronized. Probably one is from subversion while > the other is not. > > Ciao, > > Duncan. > Ok, I 'synchronized' both of them, but now I am getting a different error. On running make, the output ends with the

Thanks for the suggestions. It looks like Duncan's suggestion got me a step closer, but I still can't build llvm-gcc... On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:56 AM, Christian Sayer <Christian.Sayer at dibcom.fr> wrote: > did you try a simple > > $ ../llvm-2.5/configure --prefix=/pkg/bin/llvm/ > CC=/pkg/bin/gcc-4.2.4/bin/gcc CXX=/pkg/bin/gcc-4.2.4/bin/g++ Tried that, same error.

Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> writes: > Ok, the LLVM 2.7 release notes are in near final shape. Please take > a look and suggest improvements (or, better yet, just commit > improvements if you have commit access): About the API changes, some that hit me when I ported some code to LLVM 2.7, and not in the release notes (I had sent a private email some time ago) : ---

On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 01:59:55PM -0800, Dan Gohman wrote: > The bug here isn't in clang's use of noalias or in BasicAliasAnalysis' > implementation of noalias; it's in the code that's optimizing the > icmp. Let's come back to this. The attached patch decouples InstSimplify from the alias analysis and provides the conservative logic for when pointers are not

Hi! in the llvm code there are several places with hardcoded function names for e.g. sin, sinf, sqrt, sqrtf etc., namely ConstantFolding.cpp InlineCost.cpp SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp IntrinsicLowering.cpp TargetLowering.cpp my question is: wouldn't it be beneficial to use intrinsics for this? for example a c/c++ frontend (clang) could translate the function calls to intrinsics and then in a

On Fri, 02 Mar 2012 13:55:18 +0100 Jochen Wilhelmy <jochen.wilhelmy at googlemail.com> wrote: > Hi! > > in the llvm code there are several places with hardcoded function > names for e.g. sin, sinf, sqrt, sqrtf etc., namely > ConstantFolding.cpp > InlineCost.cpp > SelectionDAGBuilder.cpp > IntrinsicLowering.cpp > TargetLowering.cpp > > my question is: