similar to: BoF: Raising Next Generation of LLVM Developers

Hi folks, Happy new year! Last LLVM Developers' Meeting I had a BoF: 'Raising Next Generation LLVM Developers'. It was suggested that we should update our open projects page and possibly restructure it a little bit. I volunteered to do this work and I need your help. Chandler and I started working on a google doc [1]. We pinged few code owners asking them to list of

The list can't ommit clang-tidy. There are many ideas about new checks on llvm bugzilla. https://llvm.org/bugs/buglist.cgi?product=clang-tools-extra&component=clang-tidy&resolution=---&list_id=110936 Everything matching ".*Feature Request.*" Piotr 2017-01-16 21:31 GMT+01:00 Sean Silva via cfe-dev <cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org>: > Do we have any open projects on

Hi Matthias, Thanks a lot for the project. Could you put it in the google doc below? I'd appreciate if you could follow more-or-less the format. Are you going to be the mentor. Cheers, Vassil On 06/02/17 19:29, Matthias Braun wrote: > Here's another one: > > = Improve code generation testing = > > After instruction selection LLVM uses the MI (Machine Instruction)

> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >> +Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of >> +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical >> +design. > Should be better now. >> >> The project description stresses

+Easily, some of the code snippets end up being copied dozens of +times, which leads to worse maintainability, understandability and logical +design. The project description stresses code maintainability and logical design more than bug finding due to omissions in copy and pasted code. Reading this made me think of a check that would suggest people to replace copy and pasted code with a function

Please provide a patch to Open Projects list. On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 8:25 PM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > On 17/02/15 09:47, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: >> >> John, >> >> Yes, I'm taking care about application as usual. > > I saw the the LLVM mentoring org was accepted. Congrats! > Anton, could you tell me what is the procedure of

> On Mar 11, 2015, at 2:14 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > > On 10/03/15 19:13, Anna Zaks wrote: >> >>> On Mar 10, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch <mailto:vvasilev at cern.ch>> wrote: >>> >>> On 09/03/15 21:52, Anna Zaks wrote: >>>> >>>> +Easily, some of the code

Folks, Is there any interest in having a BoF session on the GCC+LLVM collaboration? I'd like to discuss some of the outcomes from the GNU Cauldron session and see what we could do to make that relationship healthier. So far, all the cross discussions I've seen on the GNU list (about LLVM) have been very healthy and the GNU folks seem very receptive to discussion (not so much for

Hi, I need a data structure which has fast search and I can walk it forward and backward. Is there something like that in LLVM ADT which am not aware of? And if not can I implement it in llvm::DenseSet? Vassil

Reverse iteration doesn't really make sense for DenseSet, since its iteration order isn't meaningful to begin with... --Owen On Jul 12, 2012, at 8:20 AM, Vassil Vassilev wrote: > Hi, > I need a data structure which has fast search and I can walk it > forward and backward. Is there something like that in LLVM ADT which am > not aware of? And if not can I implement it in

> On Feb 5, 2017, at 7:13 PM, Rodney M. Bates via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > A couple of Modula-3 developers have worked on splicing LLVM on as an alternative > back end to the Modula-3 compiler, out-of-tree (the LLVM tree), of course. A major > portion of the necessary glue code is there, and at one time, I was able to get the > M3 compiler and the

Something that might interest you is the SetVector, which as its name implies is both a set and a vector paired together. You get the advantage of doing set-like operations (search) on the set and vector-like operations (iteration, random access) on the vector, but at the cost of paying the price for both data structures when modifying the structure (and double the memory). This seems like it

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:31 PM, Sean Silva <chisophugis at gmail.com> wrote: > Do we have any open projects on LLD? > > I know we usually try to avoid any big "projects" and mainly add/fix > things in response to user needs, but just wondering if somebody has any > ideas. > > Some really generic/simple stuff I can think of: > 1. trying out LLD on a large

John, Yes, I'm taking care about application as usual. On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 4:48 AM, Eric Christopher <echristo at gmail.com> wrote: > I believe Anton was going to do so. > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015, 5:14 PM John Criswell <jtcriswel at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Dear All, >> >> Has someone registered LLVM as an organization for Google Summer of

UniqueVector is an stl map coupled with an stl vector[1], which seems very undesirable for you. As far as SmallVector + slow search, I believe that is precisely what the implementation of SmallSet does until it has to grow, after which it uses an stl set[2]. If you're always staying within your small number, SmallSetVector would be wasteful as the SmallSet would itself also have a SmallVector.

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:56 AM, Vassil Vassilev <v.g.vassilev at gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > This seems a very exciting project. Do I take that you’re volunteering to mentor it? ;-) > > As part of GSoC16 Raphael developed a code clone detection tool (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1mJ6dA6XmAQ8s8Zqm_j518yoW-_QZ72e69fPG1u_nbj8/edit#slide=id.g35f391192_00

Hi, Thanks a lot for the help! It seems that the SmallSetVector is the ADT I need (interface-wise). Is more efficient than llvm::UniqueVector? In my use case I have to insert a new element in the structure only if the element is unique. I hardly expect more than 32 elements. Do you think I gain a lot if I use the SmallSetVector instead of using SmallVector + slow searching on every

Hi, I have: ... @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a function\0A\00", align 1 ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { entry: %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x i8]* @.str1, i32 0, i32 0)) ret i32 0 } Then I get after trying to erase the function from the module: 511

Hi, I'm interested in GSOC in general, but I missed this roundtable unfortunately. Any summary from this session? Thanks, -- Mehdi On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 7:19 PM Vassil Vassilev via cfe-dev < cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Round table on GSoC is a very good idea. Thanks for organizing! > > -- Vassil > On 10/22/19 12:51 AM, Anton Korobeynikov via cfe-dev wrote:

On 23 October 2013 22:41, Vassil Vassilev <vvasilev at cern.ch> wrote: > Hi, > I have: > ... > @.str1 = private unnamed_addr constant [21 x i8] c"Now f is a > function\0A\00", align 1 > ; Function Attrs: ssp uwtable > define i32 @_Z1fv() #2 { > entry: > %call = call i32 (i8*, ...)* @printf(i8* getelementptr inbounds ([21 x > i8]* @.str1, i32 0,