similar to: How to deal with accidental directory tree deletes, downstream?

Mike Edwards and I will be hosting a talk/BOF called "Living Downstream Without Drowning" which is for anyone maintaining a bunch of local changes to Clang/LLVM/etc. We will present some procedures and tactics we've evolved at Sony, including patch tactics for reducing merge pain, and how we are throwing automation at the problem. But we are really curious what YOU have done

Hi, I'm having some problems cross-compiling from ppc (OS X) to x86 object files and to ia64, at all. I'd appreciate some advice as to whether or not I'm actually supposed to be able to do this, and what's wrong if so. Here's how I configured it: ../llvm-darcslocal/llvm/configure --with-llvmgccdir=$LLVMGCCDIR --prefix=$HOME/Documents/hpcl/LLVM/install The results work fine

OK, I noticed a few problems with my previous email, so I will boil the question down: What I want to do is compile for x86 and ia64 from darwin. I also want to load my own passes into opt and llc. Should I be using llvmc at all here, or should I be doing something like llvmgcc -> gccas -> opt -> llc ? I've given up on the filetype=obj argument, so now the problem is that llc is

> -----Original Message----- > From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Dean > Michael Berris via llvm-dev > Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 5:04 AM > To: David Chisnall > Cc: LLVM Developers; Bruce Hoult > Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] One or many git repositories? > > > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 21:58, David Chisnall <david.chisnall at

LLVMers, The next version of the 2.2 prerelease is available for testing: http://llvm.org/prereleases/2.2/ Please see my last email for testing directions: http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvmdev/2008-January/012249.html Please complete all testing by February 10th at 5PM PST. Thanks! -Tanya

Hi, just a quick question about the intent of the ApproximateLoopSize() function in LoopUnroll.cpp: If a loop contains debug stoppoint intrinsics, does it make sense to count them? My understanding is that they are removed when not running under llvm-db anyway, so we probably shouldn't make size judgements based on them. Is that right, or am I missing something? Anyway, if I'm right,

I've done some minimal testing on FreeBSD 8.x i386. When running make check I get: # of expected passes 2188 # of unexpected failures 1 # of expected failures 6 The error output is: Running /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/dg.exp ... FAIL: /usr/cvsports/devel/llvm/work/llvm-2.2/test/Transforms/LoopUnroll/2007-11-05-Crash.ll for

> On 29 Jul 2016, at 21:58, David Chisnall <david.chisnall at cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > On 29 Jul 2016, at 12:35, Dean Michael Berris <dean.berris at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I understand this, but why isn't "the repo you're interested in" just the megarepo (or monorepo) where every LLVM project resides? > > Your assumption is a downstream

Hello Matthijs, Separating mechanism from policy is a good thing for the LoopUnroll pass. Instead of moving the policy to a subclass though, I think it'd be better to move the mechanism, the unrollLoop function, out to be a standalone utility function, with the LoopInfo object passed in explicitly. FoldBlockIntoPredecessor would also be good to make into a standalone utility function, since

Hi All, the attached patch performs the splitting in the proposed manner. before applying the patch, please execute svn cp lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopUnroll.cpp lib/Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp to make the patch apply and preserve proper history. Transforms/Utils/UnrollLoop.cpp contains the unrollLoop function, which is now used by the LoopUnroll pass. I've also moved the

Hi, Continuing recent efforts in understanding compile time slowdowns, I looked at some historical data: I picked one test and tried to pin-point commits that affected its compile-time. The data I have is not 100% accurate, but hopefully it helps to provide an overview of what's going on with compile time in LLVM and give a better understanding of what changes usually impact compile time.

Is anyone currently working on overhauling the command-line processing code? We're currently having some design issues with this component, and I'd like to start a larger conversation on it. For context, I am talking from an "LLVM as a library" perspective instead of an "LLVM as a set of tools" perspective. In a nut-shell, the problems we are facing are as follows:

I know there is no straightforward way to recover deleted files on an ext3 file system, but is there any way to recover from an accidental mke2fs? -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Paul Raines email: raines@nmr.mgh.harvard.edu MGH/MIT/HMS Athinoula A. Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging 149 (2301) 13th Street tel:(617)-724-2369

https://reviews.llvm.org/rL353906 introduced (presumably accidentally) the "b" top-level directory to the monorepo. The files should be moved to their proper location, but I'm also wondering if there's any way to prevent accidental top-level additions like this. Thanks, Shoaib -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Hello, I wrote my own pass which needs to do some loop unrolling. I can perform loop unrolling via opt: opt -mem2reg -loops -loop-simplify -loop-rotate -lcssa -loop-unroll -unroll-count=50 mytest.bc -o mytest.bc This command works perfectly. However, what I really want is to produce the **same behavior** but from my own pass (i.e., I don't want to use opt). I wrote a Module pass which

Hi, I connected my harddisk which had ext3 filesystem and some files archived in it as slave device and issued "mkfs /dev/hdb2" accidentally. Immediately I issued Ctrl C and stopped the process. But before that it had deleted some 100 Blocks. After that I am unable to boot that hard disk as primary device. The system is asking me "please insert a valid boot device and press

The loop rotation pass does modify the function, which I'm guessing means that a FunctionPassManager can be used to run LoopPasses (this is not obvious to me after looking through the FunctionPassManager code). Unfortunately none of the other passes I'm using (ScalarEvolution, LCSSA, IndVarSimplify, and LoopUnroll) appear to have an effect. I verified that the function can be loop

Hello, One of my users just mysteriously lost all files from his inbox. I have "mail_log_events = delete undelete expunge copy mailbox_delete mailbox_rename" but couldn't find any evidence of accidental file or folder deletion. I logged in to find that ~user/mdbox/mailboxes/INBOX/dbox-Mails/dovecot.index and its backup were tiny, only 552 bytes, when the folder had thousands of

Hi, I am trying to set loop unrolling as a required pass. AU.addRequired<LoopUnroll>(); should I include any header file? How can I be possessive that "LoopUnroll" is the name I need ? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20090606/aaab7bd1/attachment.html>

Hi all, I'm attempting to perform loop unrolling on a single function using the C++ API. Maybe I missed something in the docs, but I cannot figure out a way to do this. The function I'm working with is very simple, containing a single for loop and not much else. I compiled the function to IR using clang with no optimizations enabled. My initial plan was to first run the IndVarSimplify