similar to: How to use map/set in LLVM to disable automatic sorting?

On 7/27/16 8:54 PM, ZhaoKang wrote: > Jon, > > Thanks a lot for your reply! > We will look the detailed implementation in LLVM. > In my opinion, it seems that SetVector class just defines such type, which is has the same efficiency with set, but stays a stable order. Time-efficiency for set lookup should be the same. Space-efficiency on the other hand is lost because the addition

FWIW, like David Chisnall, we (Azul) have a problem with rewriting history. Our LLVM fork has O(100) changes diverging from upstream (though our branching structure is simple), and keeping all of that history is important. What do people think of having one (or a set of) merge commit(s) merging in the non-llvm projects that will be part of the new monorepo? That's the only technique I can

It is $target dependent. I’m curious what makes you think it is $host dependent. Thanks, Taewook On 3/3/17, 5:10 PM, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: On 3/3/17 12:23 PM, Taewook Oh wrote: > Thanks Jon. Actually I tried “x86_64-linux”, but it makes the test “Unsupported” from my linux machine, and it was because my test is under

Thanks Jon. Actually I tried “x86_64-linux”, but it makes the test “Unsupported” from my linux machine, and it was because my test is under clang, not llvm. It seems that clang doesn’t support “x86_64-linux” yet. Thanks again! Best, Taewook On 3/3/17, 10:57 AM, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: On 3/3/17 11:46 AM, Taewook Oh via llvm-dev

[+llvmdev, -llvm-dev] (Oopsies, llvmdev doesn't have a hyphen in it like all the others do) On 6/17/14, 10:45 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: > [+llvm-dev, cfe-dev] > > Was "Re: [PATCH] ARM: allow inline atomics on Cortex M" > > On 6/17/14, 10:42 AM, Jonathan Roelofs wrote: >> >> >> On 6/17/14, 9:35 AM, Renato Golin wrote: >>> On 17 June 2014

The source is cloned from https://github.com/llvm-mirror/llvm Thanks. Zhoulai On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 4/9/15 9:58 AM, Zhoulai wrote: > >> Hi, I am using LLVM to develop a tool, using Mac OS 10.9. I have >> download llvm source and binary from >> >>

Eric, Attached are patches for llvm and clang that implement this. I've made 'none' a component that must be added explicitly (i.e. don't turn arm-eabi into arm--none-eabi, but rather turn it into arm--unknown-eabi) to try to reduce surprises. It also keeps the normalization logic a bit simpler than it would otherwise have to be. SPIR triples were one place where I was

I don't see a way to create a ConstantDataVector from Constant or form APFloat though. Did I oversee that? Is the solution to had a new get function in ConstantDataVector to allow that? Any hint on what would be the right fix otherwise? Thomas -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Roelofs [mailto:jonathan at codesourcery.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2015 10:30 AM To: Raoux, Thomas

On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com > wrote: > How about per-thread if the counter is hot enough? > Err. How do you know if the counter is hot w/o first profiling the app? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Jon, > You want: > TaintVar->insertAfter(FirstI); This worked! Thank you. On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 8/25/16 7:01 AM, Shehbaz Jaffer via llvm-dev wrote: >> >> I tried an alternative way of adding instruction by first getting the >> first instruction of the basic block, and then

On 11/9/15 5:49 PM, John Reagan wrote: > That would be fine with me. I just don't want some new visitor to > come along and see "CMake only" and get discouraged and leave. Well, it is going to be "CMake only". Anyone who depends on autotools is going to be stuck on whatever the last revision is that we shipped with it. And I really don't see it being feasible

Does anybody else have an opinion on this issue? I'm planning to submit a patch which would add a new get method for ConstantDataVector taking an ArrayRef<Constant*> and use that in the few places in constant propagation where convertToFloat is used. Let me know if you think there is a more obvious way to do it. Right now the only way to create a ConstantDataVector are those method:

On 18 December 2014 at 21:32, Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > I think this will help one facet of your problem: > http://reviews.llvm.org/D6584 I don't think so, because the tests don't time out, it's a buffering issue... --renato

2015-03-12 10:49 GMT-05:00 Jonathan Roelofs <jonathan at codesourcery.com>: > You need to build a sysroot from the lib and include directories in > ~/research/musl-1.1.6 combined with the same folders from > /usr/local/arm-2009q, then use `--sysroot` instead of the `-I`s and `-L's. I copied everything from the lib in musl-1.1.6 to

Thanks Dan and Jon. I made an incorrect assumption that the "use" iterator was actually giving me the "user" when de-referencing it. Did it always have this behavior in previous LLVM versions? I've seen lots of examples of the "use" iterator being dereferenced and resulting Instruction pointer being treated as the "user"? Thanks, Zack On Tue, Jun 9,

I'm not sure that test have ever been run through LIT. It was tested on Android, but I don't have LIT tweaked for libc++abi the same way I do for libc++, so it was built outside of LIT and run manually. On Oct 27, 2014 11:41 AM, "Jonathan Roelofs" <jonathan at codesourcery.com> wrote: > > > On 10/27/14 11:39 AM, Renato Golin wrote: > > Right now, there's

Dear Mehdi, I've changed your example a little bit: float saxpy(float a, float *x, float *y, int n) { int j = 0; for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i) { y[j] = a*x[i] + y[I]; // Change 'I' into 'j'? ++j; } } I get this code below, once I replace 'I' with 'j'. We are copying n positions of both arrays, 'x' and 'y': float saxpy(float a,

Jon, I need to create a database of basics blocks and their execution time. The only thing I'm concerned is if a block A is more expensive than a block B. Do you think that even with the overhead I would be able to get the A > B information? Like: overhead + time(A) > overhead + time(B) => A > B. If so, I'm not too much concerned about the accuracy. Not sure if I was clear,

On 3/17/15 5:35 PM, Steve King wrote: > Clang correctly assembled a .s file when using the -integrated-as > option. Thanks, that is news to me! However, without -integrated-as, > clang invoked 'as', which won't work for a GNU-less target. Accepting > assembler invocation as a good case study for target specific clang > defaults, what is the proper solution? Again,

On 7/16/14, 6:09 PM, sgundapa wrote: > I see a couple of issues here. > > If I include .S files for ARM, the –no-integrated-as path complains about > Assembler errors. > > The integrated-as path works fine though. > These are very likely just differences between the old ARM assembler syntax and the new 'Unified' syntax. Can you use an assembler that accepts UAL