similar to: [RFC] Introduce Dump Accumulator

I think that we should think about the relationship between this proposed mechanism and the existing mechanism that we have for emitting and capturing optimization remarks. In some sense, I feel like we already have a lot of this capability (e.g., llc has -remarks-section).  -Hal On 8/5/20 5:51 PM, Johannes Doerfert via llvm-dev wrote: > I like the ability, not sure about the proposed

On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 3:51 PM Eli Friedman <efriedma at quicinc.com> wrote: > I’m not a fan of keeping important data outside the IR in an analysis. If > we’re planning to emit it, it should be represented directly in the IR. Is > there some reason we can’t just stick the data in a global variable? > The analysis in the scenarios here is external to LLVM - ML training, for

On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 4:13 PM, Rui Ueyama via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Sorry for the belated response. I was on vacation last week. A couple of > thoughts on this patch and the story of webassembly linking. And I'm about to be on (mostly) vacation for next 3 weeks :) > > - This patch adds a wasm support as yet another major architecture besides >

Without this option, configure will fail when there is no display. Signed-off-by: Masami HIRATA <msmhrt at gmail.com> --- configure.ac | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/configure.ac b/configure.ac index de8a064..61d6f69 100644 --- a/configure.ac +++ b/configure.ac @@ -593,16 +593,16 @@ working. AC_MSG_FAILURE([$QEMU version must be >=

Dan Gohman <sunfish at mozilla.com> writes: >> Sorry, I meant why that didn't work with ELF (or what else didn't). >> > > The standard executable WebAssembly format does not use ELF, for numerous > reasons, most visibly that ELF is designed for sparse decoding -- headers > contain offsets to arbitrary points in the file, while WebAssembly's format > is

Signed-off-by: Masami HIRATA <msmhrt at gmail.com> --- generator/generator_python.ml | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/generator/generator_python.ml b/generator/generator_python.ml index dc9cbca..b11df6e 100644 --- a/generator/generator_python.ml +++ b/generator/generator_python.ml @@ -391,7 +391,7 @@ free_strings (char **argv) pr "

Signed-off-by: Masami HIRATA <msmhrt at gmail.com> --- generator/generator_xdr.ml | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/generator/generator_xdr.ml b/generator/generator_xdr.ml index 9acea8f..ef9e0f2 100644 --- a/generator/generator_xdr.ml +++ b/generator/generator_xdr.ml @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ let generate_xdr () = generate_header CStyle LGPLv2plus; (* This has to be

There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, they check debug info. Adding // FIXME: comments shift that. If the goal is easy identification of auto-inserted -allow-unused-prefixes directives, how about: - we make the flag an enum: true, false, and auto_inserted - we use

Hi All, We have a local change in the X86AsmPrinter that outputs a section containing metadata on function stack sizes. We use this to measure changes to stack size between versions of the compiler and it also allows our licensees to do the same for their code. The section simply contains pairs of function symbol references (8 byte) and stack sizes (unsigned LEB128). We would like to

Sorry, I wasn't aware of that. I can make the google doc view-only, keeping the current comments. I'll wait a bit (few hrs) to see if there's any pushback to that. On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 9:57 AM Xinliang David Li <xinliangli at gmail.com> wrote: > One suggestion : should we consolidate the discussion into the main > thread? I know some folks are not willing to comment in

On Tue, Nov 10, 2020, 01:03 James Henderson <jh7370.2008 at my.bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I don't know if lit's parser is up to this (I suspect it isn't), but could > you add a comment to the end/in the middle of a RUN? Something like `# RUN: > do some thing | FileCheck %s --check-prefix=UNUSED --allow-unused-prefixes > ## FIXME? That would avoid changing the line

how about -allow-unused-prefixes=needs_review On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > I don't feel too strongly about the "=true" bit for legitimate cases - > I'd prefer not to have it, but it's not the end of the world. > I do feel more strongly that if you're going to automatically add it > to cases that might

My preference would be to go with the tri-value option - I think the downside of folks needing to write a value after "-allow-unused-prefixes" is not that terrible; if folks feel that using true/false/auto is weird, how about "allowed/disallowed/script_allowed" or something like that. I'd argue that the value here is getting to the place where the default is right (so we

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:54 PM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 10:18 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev > <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > There's a wrinkle in this: some tests (clang ones, for instance) have > output checks depending on the line position of the input. For example, > they check debug info. Adding

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 11:36 AM David Blaikie via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:46 AM Mircea Trofin <mtrofin at google.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at

Could this issue also be related to an “AphrontQueryException #1030: Got error 28 from storage engine” error when browsing Phabricator? ~ Todd Snider From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Hubert Tong via llvm-dev Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 9:15 AM To: Mircea Trofin Cc: Nicolai Hähnle via llvm-dev Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] arc diff says "disk is

I recently discovered that multi-line RUN statements can actually be interrupted with non-RUN lines, without changing the behaviour. In other words, you can do something like: # RUN: some command --option1 \ ## Comment # CHECK: check something # RUN: --option2 And you'd end up with "some command --option1 --option2" being run. It's rather surprising behaviour, and not one

I think it would make more sense to add it at each individual call site. This ensures that all cases are fixed, rather than just one in a file. It also ensures that in the (hopefully unlikely) event that there are both intentional and unintentional use-cases within a file, each one gets checked. On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 at 20:29, Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 10:40 AM David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 7:30 AM Mircea Trofin via llvm-dev < > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > >> There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet >> <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>.

There are currently 1350 owner-less failures in the spreadsheet <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1o6q3XH1n3DDyyccnYZ_kVfhFbTDzC_S09e973_cwYuw/edit#gid=0>. These seem to be the larger areas there. If you see an area you have ownership or expertise in, please sign up for fixing the tests by Monday, Nov. 9. Otherwise, I will "blanket-add" --allow-unused-prefixes=true to the