similar to: Accessing '__attribute__((noinstrument))' during lowering

I imagine you can get the llvm::Function from the MachineFunction, and the attribute will be there (on the llvm::Function), but can't say I know much about it. On Tue, Dec 20, 2016 at 2:04 AM Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Is it possible to find whether a function has the ‘noinstrument’ > attribute during Target lowering? I would like

Thanks David, I have tried ‘MF.getFunction()->hasFnAttribute(Attribute::???)’, but it seems that the front-end ‘NoInstrumentFunction’ attribute is not propagated to the collection of LLVM IR attributes (no equivalent is in the ‘Attribute::AttrKind’ enum). It is not obvious that there is another mechanism, and I suspect that there is not due to the separation between FE processing and LLVM

For a long time we have had code for custom lowering of adjustments to the stack pointer. But until recently we did not realise that we were handling only places that provided a fixed-value for such adjustments, and the ISD nodes 'ADJCALLSTACKDOWN' and 'ADJCALLSTACKUP' are only described in our TableGen descriptions for immediates. This hasn't previous mattered as LLVM

Yes, it looks like passing ‘EnableVec’ and ‘EnableSLPVec’ to ‘Args.hasFlag’ should be replaced with ‘false’ and then it has the expected behaviour. MartinO From: cfe-dev [mailto:cfe-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Martin J. O'Riordan via cfe-dev Sent: 01 March 2018 18:02 To: 'Richard Smith' <richard at metafoo.co.uk> Cc: 'Clang Dev'

There's always the hypothetical template<typename T> llvm::Triple giveMeATripleDamnYou(const T &); Just keep adding implementations until you stop needing to. ;-) Cheers. Tim. On 1 January 2018 at 17:00, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > Thanks Tim, > > Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can

Hi Martin, On Fri, 3 Aug 2018 at 14:10, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > $ git branch --list > * master > martino By default "git branch" only lists local branches. "git branch -a" will list all of them, including (for me) "remotes/origin/release_70". If you just type "git checkout release_70" git will

Thanks Tim, Sometimes my hacks last longer than I want as it isn't always apparent how I can implement it properly. At the moment I am looking at changes I need to 'MachineBasicBlock::ReplaceUsesOfBlockWith'. It is most likely that I need to handle the issue in a different way, but the change I need works here for my target for the time being, but breaks X86 which I also build for

I recently examined a bug in a program, and it turned out that the customer was using the section attribute as a form of inline-assembly mechanism, with something like: __attribute__((section("sectionName\nasm\nasm\nasm"))) this was really ugly and not at all obvious where the problem originated. Is there any way of getting LLVM or CLang to validate the name used in the section

Cool this is better than I expected - I never thought about the YAML support. And the document reference is really very good. Thanks Francis, MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Francis Visoiu Mistrih [mailto:francisvm at yahoo.com] Sent: 05 February 2018 21:43 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; Adam Nemet

Hi David, When I use CMake to configure, ‘zlib’ and its header are detected - I build on CentOS 6.5 or CentOS 7. Since I run CMake from the command-line, I tried added ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=0’ and ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=1’ (using ‘-DLLVM_ENABLE_ZLIB=ON’ does not seem to work). Both ‘clang’ and ‘llvm-profdata’ (and all other tools and utilities) are configured and built together, in any event,

Yep, done that already, but it is not at all a good fit when the device is inside a drone flying around ;-) What we do have, is a fake file-system that keeps everything in memory, and after the profiling is completed we offload it for analysis. I guess I was hoping that there would be a more robust system agnostic implementation. Use of ‘mmap’ is similarly constraining. MartinO

We'll be doing something similar for our OpenVMS port.  Right now I'm using "AsmStreamer->GetCommentOS()" and writing to the stream at the assembler level but that gets aligned on a right-side column (the column is hardcoded) and you have to be in verbose mode.  So if you come up with something or have a quick design, post it so perhaps we can leverage each other's work. 

Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that use 'ReplaceNode/SelectCode' and return 'void', but what about the places where I currently call 'Select(N)' directly?

We discovered what is happening. SDAGCombiner essentially looks at various combinations of nodes to do with vectors, and when it can, it creates a vector shuffle. The problem is, that our vector shuffle lowering builds new trees with vector element, or vector sub-vector insert sequences. The generic DAGCombiner, reconstructs these into a new shuffle, and so the loop continues - we reduce it,

"Martin J. O'Riordan" <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> writes: > Thanks Ahmed and also Alex for your replies. > > This is more or less what I was realising, but it is a great > confidence booster to know that it is the correct way also. I can > replace all of my various 'Select*' specialisations with version that > use

Yes, if it is in the interface it would make more sense to have a null implementation at the very least. In my out-of-tree target, I also removed them from the interface if the build was for Release to ensure that I got compile-time errors to reveal other places I might have otherwise missed. All the best, MartinO -----Original Message----- From: Dibyendu Majumdar [mailto:mobile at

It occurred to me that instead of the various breakout 'Select*' functions returning the 'SDNode*' result, maybe I should be calling: ReplaceNode(N, newValue); return; or: SelectCode(N); return; Perhaps? MartinO From: Martin J. O'Riordan [mailto:martin.oriordan at movidius.com] Sent: 28 June 2016 16:49 To: 'LLVM Developers'

Martin: It sounds like you are doing is more akin to shuffle selection than fusion and therefore it's a better fit for instruction selection than DAGCombining. Try movign it to <Target>ISelDAGToDAG's Select (or potentially PreprocessISelDAG). Th -Nirav On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 4:05 PM Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote: > We discovered what is

This is a pretty trivial question, but why are triple-slash comments ('///') sometime used instead of double-slash comments ('//'). I'm sure that there is a good reason and a convention involved, but I do not know what it is. Thanks, MartinO -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL:

Thanks :) From: 陳韋任 [mailto:chenwj.cs97g at g2.nctu.edu.tw] Sent: 14 April 2017 12:53 To: Martin J. O'Riordan <martin.oriordan at movidius.com> Cc: LLVM Developers <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] Options for timing passes in LLVM? Refer to `llc` document [1], it would be `--time-passes`. [1] http://llvm.org/docs/CommandGuide/llc.html HTH,