similar to: cross-checking external declarations / debug info for declarations

> On Dec 9, 2016, at 2:16 PM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > > Adrian, this appears to generate, in my example below, the return type for > the external function (“foo” below) but does not generate a (in Dwarf) > DW_TAG_Subprogram which binds that type to the name. Is that expected? > We are probably not visiting forward declarations in CGDebugInfo. You

I was able to add a call to EmitFunctionDecl in lib/CodeGen/CodeGenModule.cpp and then needed a corresponding LLVM change to handle Subprogram¹s in the retained type vector. The diff D18565 is marked Abandoned. What is the future plans for supporting full-type consumers? On 12/9/16, 2:24 PM, "aprantl at apple.com on behalf of Adrian Prantl" <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: >

I had assumed you would treat phi nodes differently from other operations in that they don’t need to keep the block alive just to retain the data flow facts but it would be simplest to do that. Thanks Daniel From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> Date: Friday, January 29, 2016 at 10:26 PM To: David Callahan <dcallahan at

Hello all, I am trying to use cbind to add a named empty column to a Matrix: outputmatrix <- cbind(outputmatrix,kog_id = seq(0,0,0)) The problem I have is that kog_id is a variable that has a value e.g. "KOG1234", but I when I try to use this to name the added column, it is named literally "kog_id" instead of "KOG1234". How can I name a column by passing in a

I think you can also avoid the RDF computation using a more directed form of control dependence testing such as described in Keshav Pingali and Gianfranco Bilardi. 1997. Optimal control dependence computation and the Roman chariots problem. ACM Trans. Program. Lang. Syst. 19, 3 (May 1997), 462-491. DOI=http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/256167.256217 However one challenge seems to be fixing the SSA graph

Hello all, I am trying to use the micEcon 'insertRow' function inside a function I have written. For example: insert_row_test <- function(m){ insertRow(m,nrow(m)+1,v=0,rName="test") } However, when I try to call the 'insert_row_test' function (after loading the micEcon package), it does not insert a row into the matrix I pass in. When I call the insertRow

Thanks for the response. To clarify in your suggestion, llvm-link will combine the modules but not run the optimization pass, that is still delayed until the final binary is built, correct? My use case is apply LTO to roughly program subsets; sacrificing effectiveness to avoid scaling problems and to allow the artifacts to be reused like archives and cached like .o’s. I need to trigger the

Maybe I was too quick here. Does gcc record the incoming edge to a phi? If so, won’t those change when you delete blocks in a non-trivial manner? How are those updated? From: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>> Date: Saturday, January 30, 2016 at 7:02 AM To: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>>, Hal Finkel

(and sys::cas_flag that STATISTIC uses is a uint32 ...) On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org> wrote: > Okay, dumb question: > Are you really getting negative numbers in the second column? > > 526,766 -136 mem2reg # PHI nodes inserted > > http://llvm.org/docs/doxygen/html/PromoteMemoryToRegister_8cpp_source.html >

Thanks Also I found that some cases are also caught by a specialized routine to remove dead loops which is missing the case I noticed. odavd From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org<mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> Date: Thursday, January 28, 2016 at 8:45 PM To: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>>, LLVM Dev Mailing list <llvm-dev at

On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 10:09 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *To: *"Daniel Berlin" <dberlin at dberlin.org>, "LLVM Dev Mailing list" < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Sent: *Thursday, January 28, 2016

In practice, APT is not faster to build than rdf. The df calculator we use is linear time and quite fast. Updating is also pretty trivial since it's only deletes of dead and unreachable code. So anything it reached can be replaced with undef in most cases. Cd-dce is not slower in GCC than dce On Fri, Jan 29, 2016, 8:31 PM David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > I think you

Hi, I have a new variant of Aggressive Dead Code Elimination that also removes dead branching. It is designed to minimize the cost of control-dependence analysis in the common case where almost the entire program is live. It also can optionally remove dead but may-be-infinite loops. When enabled for –O3 (replacing current ADCE pass) and removing loops, impact on SPEC2006 is in the noise but it

This looks similar to the problem I fixed awhile back in r292408. I'll take a look (probably tomorrow since I am taking some vacation today). Teresa On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:43 AM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > +Teresa > > On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 9:20 AM David Callahan via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> I am tracking a

On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 11:49 AM, David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com> wrote: > > I may have not correctly used the IDFCalculator. I passed in the > PostDominator tree and then changed the loop over successor blocks to also > be able to iterate over predecessors. I did not see anything in the > interface that would let that happen but perhaps I don’t understand the API > so

GDAL Package for R http://sourceforge.net/projects/rgdal The R GDAL package is an interface for accessing Frank Warmerdam's Geographic Data Abstraction Library from within R. GDAL is capable of reading and writing a wide range of geographic data formats including ESRI grid format and geotiff. On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 09:09, Witold Eryk Wolski wrote: > <SNIP> > SourceForge.net

Given they in separate repos, is there a way to to verify which revisions go together? Is it enough that the clang (shortly) after llvm in time? On 2/5/19, 1:03 PM, "Eric Christopher" <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: Your clang and your llvm don't match, they're often version locked and you need to make sure both of them are the same-ish revision. -eric

[+Danny] ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Justin Bogner via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > To: "David Callahan via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:36:50 PM > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] RFC: New aggressive dead code elimination pass > > David Callahan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at

Some question: 1. IDFCalculator already allows reverse graphs, and gets used for that, so what did you have to change? (this change was made in the past year, so i wonder if you were working on a branch or something). 2. What are the actual numbers here in terms of calculation of IDF vs your method. IDF calculator is linear time (Well, depends on priority queue impl, but we could fix that

(Adding "LLVM Dev") My variant is up as https://reviews.llvm.org/D23876 -david From: George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com<mailto:george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 at 3:17 PM To: David Callahan <dcallahan at fb.com<mailto:dcallahan at fb.com>> Subject: Re: CFLAA Hi! > I see there is on going work with alias