similar to: Backward compatibility of LLVM IR - ll/bc files

I admit I didn't know about that, but that is because I am handling a lot of *old* bugs, older than LLVM version 3.0. Version 3.0 has been released in Dec 1st 2011, and there are still many bugs open from before that point. The current BC Reader can't parse files produced by LLVM version 2.9 and below (I've checked). So, I wonder if there is anyone in favor, against (, or just

On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 6:42 AM Robinson, Paul via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Older releases are still available for download at releases.llvm.org; I > believe the 3.0 release was supposed to be able to read 2.x bitcode, so you > should be able to upgrade the bitcode with 3.0 tools and proceed from > there. I **think** everything since 3.0 is still readable

Hi everyone, In the reviewing system, after a patch is approved, what should be the following step? I assume I'll have to make sure the patch hasn't broken anything, before pushing it, so I'll wan't to run a full build+tests, probably in a remote sterile environment (like a jenkins server). Do we have an integration system like this? Or should I just trust the build+tests on my

I've tested it on MSVC, gcc, clang and icc. The solution in clang (in Decl.h) is not ideal (as you have said yourself). The solution I offer, is using a union of fields of class BitField (this is a new class that implements a bitfield of a specific type requested). With this, the definition, of the required bitfields in the subclass data, remains in the hands of the actual class needing them.

Yes please. On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, 5:02 AM Tyker1 at outlook.com via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > a bit of time has passed and there to my knowledge still no strong > arguments against removing it. > is everyone OK to proceed with the removal ? > > Gauthier > ------------------------------ > *From:* Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org> >

Hello devs, Recently I've been working on a bug that can probably be fixed with the addition of a simple flag to a class descendant of `llvm::Value`. Without increasing the size of the class, I can just add this flag to `llvm::Value::SubclassData`. But this is not an easy task! This is because the offsetes/sizes of the data stored in the `SubclassData`, are hardcoded literals/enums. If you

Hi, Do you have some code we can look at (even if it is in a nasty unpolished state, just mark it WIP and put it on Phab) ? It is hard to evaluate an alternative without the code. That said I think that the table is a little bit one-sided. I have added some inline comments. On 30/12/2019 11:53, Ehud Katz wrote: > The solution in Clang is still very complicated and error prone. A lot of

> On Apr 3, 2020, at 11:06 AM, Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Is it worth it? I think it is. But I am not sure I see the whole picture - >> are there low-memory systems that need to run LLVM on? >> >> I am not sure what needs to be done to approve such a fundamental change; >> especially when we

Ehud, can you elaborate on which classes you're trying to change. I know some of the classes already use methods like getSubclassDataFromInstruction() to hide bits from the subclasses. They could probably shift the data too. ~Craig On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 9:35 AM Bruno Ricci via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 26/12/2019 20:53, Ehud Katz via

A bit of history first: Back when we transitioned from bytecode to bitcode (2.0) we had a tool called llvm-upgrade which would read .ll files from 1.9 and output 2.0 format which could then be passed to llvm-as to produce bitcode. The release notes for 2.3 note that llvm-upgrade was not supported any more. During the 2.X development we tried to keep reading older bitcodes. Once we got to 3.1,

Hi everyone, I am going crazy over here! :) I just want to be able to use --clean with my mongrel_rails cluster::start command. I''ve upgraded to mongrel_cluster 1.0.1.1 and mongrel_rails 1.0.1. my config file is in /etc/mongrel_rails/config.yml and contains: --- log_file: log/mongrel.log port: 8000 pid_file: /var/run/mongrel_cluster/mongrel.pid servers: 2 address: 127.0.0.1 environment:

On 17 June 2014 16:07, Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> wrote: > Hi Rafael, > >> Do others agree that this is the case or at least that this would be a >> reasonable balance? > IMO it's easier to be compatible on .ll level, no? That is not my experience with the bitcode format. The way the API is structured makes it really easy to support backwards

I'm in favor for this change. I've also done some testing myself and noticed only about 1-2% increase of memory, in exchange for about 1-3% increase of speed. I can't say that a speedup of 3% (at most, and usually 1%), worth working for, this is a simple change, that give a lot more than this; especially simpler code path (also easier debugging). As part of my measurements, while

Hi, I''m trying to divide my bandwidth between different services, but I''d like to take into account the number of active users. For example, l want divide my bandwidth between HTTP and SMTP and guarantee HTTP 80% of the bandwidth. However, I have many users on my system (tens of thousands) and if only 1% of my active users are using HTTP (and the other 99% SMTP), I''d

Hi, We have an experiment with pass/fail outcome, and a continuous parameter which may contribute to the outcome. First, we've analyzed it by: p=c(F,T,F,F,F,T,T,T,T,T,T,T,F,T,T,T,T); w=c(53,67,59,59,53,89,72,56,65,63,62,58,59,72,61,68,63); l<-glm(p~w,family=binomial) summary(l) Which turned out to be non significant. Then, we thought of comparing the parameters of the two groups

I''m using scriptaculous'' SlideUp and SlideDown effects to animate a menu. Specifically, I SlideUp, make some CSS changes, and SlideDown. All works well, except that for a split second in between, the element''s display becomes ''none'' and the other menu item jump into the space. I haven''t been able to find any way to force an element to retain

Is it possible to send CLID NAME on a PRI? The numbers we send out are being received by telco and propagated, but the names we send out are not showing up. Is this a feature in PRI? Do we need to set PRI_NET instead of PRI_CPE? Is this just not possible? Is this a telco config issue? Thanks for your help... I've read voip-info, and various other sources, and search engines, and google...

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 10:55:09 -0000 "Edmund Grimley-Evans" <Edmund.Grimley-Evans at arm.com> wrote: > According to the few tests I did, .ll.gz is more compact: > > 1.00 LLVM bitcode (.bc) > 0.80 Gzipped LLVM bitcode (.bc.gz) > 4.13 LLVM assembly (.ll) > 0.68 Gzipped LLVM assembly (.ll.gz) > > However, there's not much in it, considering that a

According to the few tests I did, .ll.gz is more compact: 1.00 LLVM bitcode (.bc) 0.80 Gzipped LLVM bitcode (.bc.gz) 4.13 LLVM assembly (.ll) 0.68 Gzipped LLVM assembly (.ll.gz) However, there's not much in it, considering that a stripped native binary is about 0.40 on the same scale. So, seeing as projects such as PNaCl want to send LLVM bitcode over the network, are there any proposed

I posted the following earlier: "I need a way to do a blind up that makes the element APPEAR and a blind down that makes the element DISAPPEAR. In essence, the opposite of the current blindup/blinddown. Thoughts?" I think somebody responded in Dutch. Anyone else have any ideas? -- Yehuda Katz Web Developer (ph) 718.877.1325 (fax) 718.686.4288