similar to: Improve the performance of JamCRC

well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you mean libc++'s demangler? FYI when I said 14+% (and now it's 17%), I mean the overall performance of starting lldb, not just the demangler itself. It's probably several times faster now with this change (https://reviews.llvm.org/D32500) On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:19 PM, Vedant Kumar <vsk at apple.com>

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> > wrote: > > > > well, top-of-branch lldb uses this code, that's how I found it. Do you > mean libc++'s demangler? > > Thanks for explaining, this is the first time

It's hard to say. By definition it appears undefined (in the sense that the TS literally does not define it), but on the other hand it is a TS and this issue would (hopefully) come up and be specified before it made it to standardization. Supporting recursive parallel calls certainly seems like desirable behavior, so from my point of view it would be nice to make sure it works. Not sure if

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 1:37 PM, Asiri Rathnayake < asiri.rathnayake at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 8:36 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Apr 25, 2017, at 12:24 PM, Scott Smith <scott.smith at purestorage.com> >> wrote: >> > >> > well, top-of-branch lldb

On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Vedant Kumar via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Apr 24, 2017, at 5:37 PM, Scott Smith via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: >> >> I've been working on improving the startup performance of lldb, and ran into an issue with llvm::HashString. It works a character at a time, which creates a long

Hmm, ok. In that case let me try again without my local changes. Maybe they are getting in the way :-/ On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:51 AM Leonardo Santagada <santagada at gmail.com> wrote: > it is identical to me... wierd. > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> > wrote: > >> (Ignore the fact that my hashes are 8 byte in the

Hi all, This is just a PSA that as of r302752, 3 parallel algorithms (for_each, for_each_n, and sort) are available in llvm/Support/Parallel.h. Effort was made to match the C++ Parallelism TS N4507 [ http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2015/n4507.pdf] as closely as possible, but some aspects were intentionally omitted. No support is added for the executor proposal N4406 [

On May 10, 2017 9:14 PM, "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote: On 05/10/2017 10:36 PM, Zachary Turner via llvm-dev wrote: It's hard to say. By definition it appears undefined (in the sense that the TS literally does not define it), but on the other hand it is a TS and this issue would (hopefully) come up and be specified before it made it to standardization. You mean

This is Greg's area, he'll be able to answer in detail how the name chopper gets used. IIRC it chops demangled names, so it is indirectly a client of the demangler, but it doesn't use the demangler to do this directly. Name lookup is done by finding all the base name matches, then comparing the context. We don't do a very good job of doing fuzzy full name matches - for instance

I'm now thinking that there's a bug in either obj2yaml or yaml2obj, because if I run just those two tools on my codebase it generates yaml files that can't be decoded, will try now to not add any section to the obj file in llvm-objcopy to see if I can link with obj files that I rewrite (but without adding symbols or sections). One of the bugs that do annoy me is that the timedatestamp

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 12:52 AM, Bryce Lelbach <balelbach at lbl.gov> wrote: > * I am concerned that nested parallel algorithms will prove to be a > big implementation burden for GPU and accelerator architectures. > Can't they fall back on serial execution? I thought the executor is a hint, not a requirement (certainly the standard doesn't say it has to execute on

Interesting. If it is generating yaml files that can't be decoded, then definitely sounds like a bug. If you can provide a reduced test case we can try to fix it, but admittedly it can often take some effort to generate a reduced test case. The best way is to use creduce. Use cl or clang-cl and write the pre-processed output to a file, then run creduce on that file with a test that

According to... https://github.com/rurban/smhasher/blob/master/README.md Bernstein has quality problems (while xx is as good as you get in a non-crypto hash), and xx is 7x (32 bit) - 12x (64 bit) faster. That's on long strings. It would be worth checking the startup overhead for typically short identifiers in programs. See later on in the README: "When used in a hash table the

dumpbin has some clues. I ran dumpbin /all on both object files and diffed the results. In the good object file, Section #2 (.data) has File Pointer to Raw Data = 208, but in the bad file Section #2 (.data) has File Pointer to Raw Data = 0. Also, Section #3 (.bss) in the good file has Size of Raw Data = 4, but in the bad file Section #3 (.bss) has Size of Raw Data = 0. On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at

it is identical to me... wierd. On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 6:49 PM, Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > (Ignore the fact that my hashes are 8 byte in the "good" file, this is due > to some local changes I've been experimenting with) > > On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 9:48 AM Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com> wrote: > >> I did this: >>

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

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 spend 10 minutes waiting > for a build leads to a lot of wasted developer time. > > The real culprit here is tablegen. Can we split support and ADT into two > - the parts that tablegen depends on and the parts that it doesn't? >

2017-05-29 9:25 GMT-07:00 Zachary Turner <zturner at google.com>: > 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 spend 10 minutes waiting

So, when performing expression evaluation, lldb trips over an assert in clang/lib/AST/RecordLayoutBuilder because ExternalFieldOffsets doesn't contain a FieldDecl that updateExternalFieldOffset expected. I found that the assert occurs when both static and non-static member variables are present. For instance, with the following, the lldb command 'expr my_test.length()' does not

FYI, this turned out to be an error of omission in LLDB in SymbolFileDWARF, because the case of a non-defining external (i.e. a static member variable) wasn't being handled with a variable lookup to dig up the location. I'll put a patch together for lldb-commits, - Ashok From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Thirumurthi, Ashok