similar to: RFC: changing variable naming rules in LLVM codebase

I would assume that the proper name in this case is constantExpr, and not CE. This is not really an acronym, but rather a shortcut taken for some unclear reason. > On 12. Feb 2019, at 13:02, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > >

It very much depends on what is following the code snippit. If the second "if" is guarding a substantial block of code, "constantExpr" might very well be a good name. Otherwise something like "cExpr" or "constExpr" might be fine. In the past when I have seen things like "CE" in the code, it's not always immediately clear to me what it is. I

> On Feb 12, 2019, at 4:02 AM, Björn Pettersson A via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > (Sorry if this subject already has been discussed, but I could not find any clear rules/recommendations.) > > What would the recommendation be for acronyms (I’ve seen the rule about avoiding them unless they are “well known”, > but sometimes an acronym is useful, and we

FWIW, I'm pretty strongly opposed to humbleCamelCase. We already use that style so something else. One of the biggest advantages of changing the variable naming convention would be to differentiate variables from other constructs IMO, and that's the nature of many examples here. Using underscore_names for variables as Zach suggests would,, onhe other hand, be a significant improvement

On 2/18/2019 4:15 AM, Michael Platings via llvm-dev wrote: > Taking my previous example [1]: > > InnerLoopVectorizer LB(L, PSE, LI, DT, TLI, TTI, AC, ORE, VF.Width, IC, > &LVL, &CM); > > If we imagine that over time it evolves such that 50% of the variables have been renamed to camelBack versions of the type names, then it will look like this: > >

> On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 12:57 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote: >> I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like variables) like functions, not like variables. >> >> - Use verbs, not nouns. > > I think I agree with

I argue we should spell C++ lambdas (and other function-like variables) like functions, not like variables. - Use verbs, not nouns. - Use lowerCamelCase. Here's a patch that implements the change to the coding standards: https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D48991> Thoughts? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

> On Jul. 5, 2018, at 18:12, Bruce Hoult via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 5:30 PM, Adrian Prantl via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote: > > > > On Jul 5, 2018, at 1:09 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at

Hi all, As application of the naming rules are currently under discussion [1] this seems like a good time to bring this up: The current variable naming rule [2] states: Variable names should be nouns (as they represent state). The name should be camel case, and start with an upper case letter (e.g. Leader or Boats). I'm a relatively new arrival to the LLVM codebase and I want to follow the

Heyho, Recently I tried out the ORCv2 JIT, especially the LLJIT. I gotta say, that I really like the new interface and the way you use it! However there is one thing I'm missing. I wrote a small bit code file, which should force having a global constructor. int wuff(); __declspec(noinline) int miau() { printf("Huhuhu"); return wuff(); } const int x = miau(); When I

On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > OK here's the patch for real this time :) > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test > "union.ll" does not work, so you probably don't want to check this > in as is. However, I'd be interested in any

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019 at 23:20, Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I don't care about the convention, but I'm really not sure it's worth the churn which would result in the code base. The hurtle which needs cleared here is not "is it a better naming style", but "is the disruption implied by changing to the new convention

OK here's a new version of the patch - and the unions.ll test actually passes :) On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK here's the patch for real this time :) >> >> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: >> Here's a work

Thanks very much for all the feedback. I've tried to collect the information into a proposal for a transition plan: https://reviews.llvm.org/D59251. -Michael -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190312/8c8a6961/attachment.html>

Hi Sanjay, Thanks, I saw this flag and it's definitely should be considered, but it appeared to me to be static characteristic of target platform. I'm not sure how appropriate it would be to change its value from a front-end. It says "Has", while optional flag would rather say "Uses" meaning that implementation cares about floating point exceptions. Regards, Sergey

OK here's the patch for real this time :) On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Talin <viridia at gmail.com> wrote: > Here's a work in progress of the union patch. Note that the test "union.ll" > does not work, so you probably don't want to check this in as is. However, > I'd be interested in any feedback you're willing to give. > > -- > -- Talin

Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hi, Artur > > >> I'm working on that backend now, so probably I'll send some more patches >> soon. I'd be grateful if you could give me some suggestions how to add >> some test for that backend to the test-suite. On Linux the output code >> could be run on Mono and compared with outputs for other backends but >>

I've made all the suggested changes - however, I'm having a bit of problem running the tests. I started "make check" and several hours later it had only made it through about 1/3 of the tests. I'm not sure what the deal is. On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote: > > On Jan 16, 2010, at 11:15 AM, Talin wrote: > > OK

The current BasicCallGraph will miss call sites like this: %tmp86 = call i8* (...)* bitcast (i8* ()* @find_ispell to i8* (...)*)( ) ; <i8*> [#uses=1] Here the direct user of @find_ispell is a ConstantExpr. I added several lines of code to address this case. Below is the output of command: svn diff lib/Analysis/IPA/CallGraph.cpp Attached is LLVM asm files with such function calls.

[just so i don't end up with "why haven't you spoken up"] On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 1:32 AM Philip Reames via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > I do not support this. I feel the benefit is low, and the churn cost is high. > > I'm not strongly opposed or anything, I just don't believe this is worthwhile. Same thoughts. > Philip Roman