similar to: FYI: LLVM Phabricactor notifications.

I believe (and I believe it was James who pointed this out on IRC) that Phabricator pulls in all refs, and GitHub stores PR commits under refs/pull. On 5/30/19, 3:37 PM, "llvm-dev on behalf of Tom Stellard via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org on behalf of llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: On 05/30/2019 10:04 AM, Sachkov, Alexey via llvm-dev wrote: >

On Fri, May 31, 2019, 10:02 AM Roman Lebedev via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 10:55 AM Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > We should be able to control the noise of these > > >, but I also wonder whether we can switch to github reviews as part of > the git move :) >

I actually run a in-house Phabricator instance with 400+ users and multiple git repo including custom extension developments I also follow the Phabricator development quite closely because we upgrade every couple of weeks I’d be more than happy to help maintain the phab instance for LLVM MyDeveloperDay On Fri, 31 May 2019 at 09:19, Manuel Klimek via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>

I tweaked the notifications yesterday, hopefully we don't see more spam storms. For filtering git refs: this is something that has changed substantially in Phabricator over the past couple of months, but I think I've managed to restrict notifications to only "master." (Although, again, this has changed a lot... getting this right depends on my own archaeological skills for

On Sat, Jun 1, 2019 at 5:29 AM <paul.robinson at sony.com> wrote: > One particular change: I've disabled notifications for the duplicate > Subversion meta-repos... so, for example, a commit to Clang will still get > 2 notifications (rL and rG). Before yesterday, this should have sent 3: one > each for rL, rG, and rC. Projects not in the monorepo will get > notifications

Hi Alexey, Your reply has been a great help to me,your way of explain the different types of compilation is very detailed and easy to understand. Even so, I have a couple of questions. 1) What do yourefer by OpenCL RT? 2) Could you give me some examples of an open-source OpenCL implementation and update optimization pipeline? Thank you in advance. Regards El vie., 20 sept. 2019 a las 12:34,

PaulR (sorry again if this is known knowledge) > There's no reason for Herald to be adding project LLVM/subscriber llvm-commits at the last second here. Its possible the rL (LLVM) had be added as the repository in the review on creation rather than rCFE, if thats the case then the herald rule "H270" is going to fire because it see the repository in the review, so add LLVM

Hi Alexey, Thank you very much for your detailed reply, will look into the resources indicated. I'd like to avoid C++ if possible, let me see how it goes. Regards, Rajesh Jayaprakash On Tue 12 Mar, 2019, 6:35 PM Sachkov, Alexey, <alexey.sachkov at intel.com> wrote: > Hi Rajesh, > > If I understand correctly, libclang is a C interface to Clang features, > not LLVM. That

Dear llvm-dev list, Apologies if this list is not the right venue for this query - suitable redirection would be appreciated in that case. I have a JIT use case that I'd like to know the best way to implement using LLVM. I am looking to migrate from the existing native compilation option (Tiny C Compiler - TCC) for pLisp, a Lisp dialect and IDE. At present, the native compilation is done

Dear all, After a huge amount of time trying to install LLVM and Clang i could finally do it, so now im trying to use this tools for generating a bytecode, then apply it modular optimizations and then generate an executable to test the result. First, I only want to compile a project and execute it to see how it works, specifically this one:

Dear all, I have a couple of questions of SPIR-V implementation for OpenCL. The first one is about the tool spirv-opt from the project SPIRV-TOOLS. When you use that tool like "spirv-opt test.spv -o test.spv", it changes something at the file or it does not do anything by not using any flag? I think it is like a "No action" flag but I am not 100% sure about that. The second

> At the dev meeting I heard Doug Gregor say something like, "what kind of dirty animals are you, you just push directly to master!?" Based on that, I think other communities may set up workflows where they push branches to places, and some automation rebases and updates master asynchronously, optionally conditioned on some (light) testing or approval. Someone has already mentioned

Hi all. I'm looking for an advice on how to deal with inefficient code generation for Intel Nehalem/Westmere architecture on 64-bit platform for the attached test.cpp (LLVM IR is in test.cpp.ll). The inner loop has 11 iterations and eventually unrolled. Test.lea.s is the assembly code of the outer loop. It simply has 11 loads, 11 FP add, 11 FP mull, 1 FP store and lea+mov for index

This sounds like llvm.org/pr13320. On 17 September 2013 18:20, Bader, Aleksey A <aleksey.a.bader at intel.com> wrote: > Hi all. > > > > I’m looking for an advice on how to deal with inefficient code generation > for Intel Nehalem/Westmere architecture on 64-bit platform for the attached > test.cpp (LLVM IR is in test.cpp.ll). > > The inner loop has 11 iterations

Hi Jakob, I've a problem related to the commit #155362. Consider the following snippet: void bar(float* f) { ... } void foo(float* f, int idx) { int hi = idx>>3; int lo = idx&7; bar(&f[hi*8+lo]); // hi*8 + lo == idx bar(&f[hi*10+lo]); } Before 155362 revision InstCombine was able to optimize hi*8+lo to idx by applying following patterns: 1. hi*8 -> hi << 3

The two address pass is only concerned about register pressure. It sounds like it should be taught about profitability. In cases where profitability can only be determined with something machinetracemetric then it probably should live it to more sophisticated pass like regalloc. In this case, we probably need a profitability target hook which knows about lea. We should also consider disabling

I don't see any problem mangling it to be honest even though there seems to be only one prototype anyways. We could add restrict in as well. Cheers, Anastasia ________________________________ From: Hongbin Zheng <etherzhhb at gmail.com> Sent: 17 September 2016 05:32:54 To: Liu, Yaxun (Sam) Cc: cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org; llvm-dev; Bader, Alexey (alexey.bader at intel.com); Anastasia

There are two unexpected failures in the check-all (this check-all runs with self-build-clang): Failing Tests (2): Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/clang-tidy-diff.cpp Clang Tools :: clang-tidy/file-filter.cpp Last log: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7/builds/340/steps/ninja%20check%202/logs/stdio From: Yaron Keren [mailto:yaron.keren at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April

I agree, it is great. I have some regression tests (check-all) failures on Windows locally. Does the buildbot show the same? On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM Yaron Keren <yaron.keren at gmail.com> wrote: > That's great to hear! > > 2015-04-23 12:08 GMT+03:00 Fedorova, Vera <vera.fedorova at intel.com>: > >> Hi All, >> >> >> >> This is

Hi All, This is to let you know that a new buildbot for Windows native LLVM/Clang testing is established: http://lab.llvm.org:8011/builders/clang-x64-ninja-win7 . Hardware + OS configuration is: Haswell desktop with Windows 7 + Visual Studio 2013 Update 4. It is hosted by Intel and hopefully will contribute to improve quality of the LLVM/Clang on Windows being developed in the LLVM community.