similar to: Choosing the appropriate iterator for the job

On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). > > The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or

Thanks for the review Gordon. On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com>wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it > wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today > in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if

Hi Chris, Gordon, Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points. I'm not sure who maintains the GC code today in LLVM (I'd be happy to take ownership, if needed). The patch just adds up a custom safepoints flag, similar to the way the GCStrategy can customize intrinsics lowering, or roots initialization. It works pretty well, as

> On 2016-Jul-11, at 09:05, Ulrich Weigand <ulrich.weigand at de.ibm.com> wrote: > > uweigand accepted this revision. > uweigand added a comment. > This revision is now accepted and ready to land. > > I'll defer to your expertise on that. Patch looks good to me. > > I guess I'm not fully familiar with some of the C++ language details here. Would you

> From: Eric Christopher > Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to associate extra comments to a > MachineInstruction ? > > Should be spelled like this yes? > > Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") > Asm->EmitFoo(); > > -eric That should work at the moment that you are emitting the instructions. But what would you do when you are manipulating a

Eli, Thanks for the tips. I've been able to get something working using a custom instruction inserter, however, I'm still having the problem of linking together the setcc and the select_cc commands. I want to turn the setcc into a comparison and use the results in the select_cc register. However, the comparison information is in the select_cc instruction and the result of the comparison

On Nov 1, 2011, at 4:47 AM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review Gordon. > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Gordon Henriksen <gordonhenriksen at mac.com> wrote: > On 2011-10-31, at 17:21, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > Here's a patch to allow a GCStrategy to customize the places where it wants to insert safe points.

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com> wrote: >> From: Eric Christopher >> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] How to associate extra comments to a >> MachineInstruction ? >> >> Should be spelled like this yes? >> >> Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") >> Asm->EmitFoo(); >> >> -eric

Hi, is there a convenient way to associate/add a comment to a MachineInstruction, so that in the produced assembly file, the comment is added next to the instruction ? Greetings, Jeroen Dobbelaere

On May 23, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > >> I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug >> assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: “vector iterators >> incompatible”. I’m using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the >> culprit code: >> >>

On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: > Hi all, > > I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug > assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: “vector iterators > incompatible”. I’m using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the > culprit code: > > MergePotentials.erase(CurMPIter); > if (CurMPIter==B) > break; >

Hi all, I updated from 2.2 to the latest SVN head and I now get a debug assert in BranchFolder::RemoveBlocksWithHash: "vector iterators incompatible". I'm using Visual C++ 2005. I think this is the culprit code: MergePotentials.erase(CurMPIter); if (CurMPIter==B) break; The erase clears the _Mycont field (i.e. the iterator's container), while the ==

The attached patch fixes bugs related to MachineBasicBlock::iterator. I don't have any test cases that reproduce on an X86 machine the problems that this patch fixes (these bugs were found when make check was run on a mips board). Please review. The first part just ensures that iterator I is not instr_end() before it invokes isInsideBundle(). The second part changes the signature of spillAll

On May 27, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Dale Johannesen wrote: > On May 27, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote: >> >> From n2461: >> >>> 8 The insert members shall not affect the validity of iterators and >>> references to the container, and the erase members shall invalidate >>> only iterators and references to the erased elements. >> >> Pretty

What are the rules regarding iterator stability for SmallPtrSet? I'm running into a problem where erasing an element seems to invalidate iterators that are not pointing at the erased element. Specifically, the set is in small mode, I advance an iterator to the last element in the set (not end(), but one before) and then erase the second-to-last element. I understand that the last element

Should be spelled like this yes? Asm->OutStreamer.AddComment("foo") Asm->EmitFoo(); -eric On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jeroen Dobbelaere <Jeroen.Dobbelaere at synopsys.com> wrote: > Hi, > > is there a convenient way to associate/add a comment to a MachineInstruction, so that > in the produced assembly file, the comment is added next to the instruction ?

Inspired by Rudolf Biczok's query of Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:25 AM, I tried to implement iteration in a generic way using S4. (Though I am admittedly still struggling with learning S4.) > setClass("foo",representation(bar="list")) [1] "foo" > x<-new("foo",bar=list(1,2,3)) Given this, I would not expect for(i in x)... to work, since R has no way

On May 27, 2008, at 1:40 PM, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 23, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Dale Johannesen wrote: >> On May 23, 2008, at 4:10 AM, Nicolas Capens wrote: >> I also am not a STL guru; the standard says erase >> "Invalidates all the iterators and references after the point of the >> erase" >> which is not wonderfully worded, but I take it to mean an

Hi, I am writing an llvm pass wherein I require to iterate MachineBasicBlocks in reverse. The ilist reverse_iterator is not functioning as expected. Nor is the ilist iterator working in reverse (although -- operator is overloaded to do so). for (MachineFunction::iterator MBBI = mf_->end(), E = mf_->begin();MBBI != E; --MBBI) { MachineBasicBlock *MBB = MBBI;

On Oct 30, 2012, at 11:57 AM, Akira Hatanaka <ahatanak at gmail.com> wrote: > The attached patch fixes bugs related to MachineBasicBlock::iterator. I don't have any test cases that reproduce on an X86 machine the problems that this patch fixes (these bugs were found when make check was run on a mips board). > > Please review. LGTM.