similar to: [compiler-rt] Improve atomic locking?

Hi, Attached is a patch for compiler-rt to allow it to compile with MinGW-w64 on Windows. Results aren't that bad. x86 GCC and Clang do everything right, all tests pass. x86_64 GCC fails a lot of tests. This is 99% sure a codegen issue. 38 - fixunssfti_test (Failed) 74 - fixunsdfti_test (Failed) x86_64 Clang fails these tests: 2 - udivmodti4_test (SEGFAULT) 6 - fixdfti_test (Failed) 8 -

2012/1/7 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > Hi Ruben, > > > I see I missed some curly braces. I also modified spacing a tiny bit. > Doesn't seem so. E.g. you have: > > + if ( !VirtualQuery(addr, &b, sizeof(b)) ) > + exit(1); > + if( !VirtualProtect(b.BaseAddress, b.RegionSize, > PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, &b.Protect) ) >

Hi, I think this more of a front-end issue than a compile-rt issue, but I’m also copying the llvm-dev list In compiler-rt the file lib/builtins/atomic.c seems to rely on determining at compile time if an atomic operation of size 1, 2, 4, or 8 is always lock free. For example, in the implementation of __atomic_load_8() we have something like this after macro expansion: void __atomic_load_8(…) {

Hey, I would like to ask if it is worth a shot to create a pull request which basically clang-formats projects like libcxxabi/libunwind ? Since those projects aren't following the LLVM coding standards. It would make the code even "more readable" also it would give "me" the feeling that it actually belongs to the LLVM project. Thanks -- Peet

drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c:92:6: warning: variable ?ret? set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing at huawei.com> --- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 15 +++++++-------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c index 7957d2d41fc4..01c456f7c1f7 100644

drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c:92:6: warning: variable ?ret? set but not used [-Wunused-but-set-variable] Signed-off-by: YueHaibing <yuehaibing at huawei.com> --- drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c | 15 +++++++-------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c b/drivers/vdpa/vdpa_sim/vdpa_sim.c index 7957d2d41fc4..01c456f7c1f7 100644

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ruben Van Boxem <vanboxem.ruben at gmail.com> Date: 2012/1/7 Subject: Re: [llvm-commits] [PATCH][Compiler-rt] Windows implementation of mmap functionality in clear_cache_test and enable_execute_stack_test To: Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> 2012/1/7 Anton Korobeynikov <anton at korobeynikov.info> > Hello Ruben

Hi, I was recently pointed out that a definition in Rinterface.h can be conflicting with a definition in stdint.h: /usr/include/R/Rinterface.h has: typedef unsigned long uintptr_t; /usr/include/stdint.h has: typedef unsigned int uintptr_t; (when 32bit platform complete definition is: #if __WORDSIZE == 64 # ifndef __intptr_t_defined typedef long int intptr_t; # define

yes I think that is correct. I wrote a simple program to print if sizeof(uintptr_t) != sizeof(unsigned char *) and when I compile with gcc -m64 and execute it on a 64-bit host (that is different from the 32-bit laptop on which I originally compiled the program), it says the sizes are not equal. Thanks Pranav On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 9:29 AM, Alexey Samsonov <samsonov at google.com> wrote:

Hi, Two questions. 1) How are you computing size of the method being jitted? 2) Why not simply add the functionality of allocating emission buffer of specific size to MachineCodeEmitter instead? Thanks, Evan On Mar 30, 2008, at 12:05 PM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi everyone, > > vmkit requires to know the size of a jitted method before emitting > the method. This allows to

Hi Ruben, > I see I missed some curly braces. I also modified spacing a tiny bit. Doesn't seem so. E.g. you have: + if ( !VirtualQuery(addr, &b, sizeof(b)) ) + exit(1); + if( !VirtualProtect(b.BaseAddress, b.RegionSize, PAGE_EXECUTE_READWRITE, &b.Protect) ) Add space after "if". Do not put spaces after "(" and before ")". Same for other

On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Hi Evan, > > Evan Cheng wrote: >> 1) How are you computing size of the method being >> jitted? > > I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a > SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as > writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these

I want to keep the translation short and simple (My IR doesn't have control flow so it's basically on basic block) that's why I don't want to rely on alloca/load/store. 2016-02-08 6:08 GMT+01:00 George Burgess IV <george.burgess.iv at gmail.com>: > Hi! > > I don't know what "the right way" to do this is, but is there any reason > you're against

vDPA supports the possibility to use user VA in the iotlb messages. So, let's add support for user VA in vringh to use it in the vDPA simulators. Signed-off-by: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare at redhat.com> --- Notes: v3: - refactored avoiding code duplication [Eugenio] v2: - replace kmap_atomic() with kmap_local_page() [see previous patch] - fix cast warnings when

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > 1) How are you computing size of the method being > jitted? I add a new pass with addSimpleCodeEmitter, with the emitter being a SizeEmitter. Since the target calls the emitter with functions such as writeByte, writeWord, etc.... the SizeEmitter class implements these function by incrementing a counter. At the end of the pass, the code size of the

On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Nicolas Geoffray <nicolas.geoffray at lip6.fr> wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> >> Let's see. ARM has it already. PPC has getNumBytesForInstruction so >> you only need to add one to compute function size. Also you only need >> to implement it for targets that support JIT right now, which leaves >> Alpha and X86. I'm

On Apr 4, 2008, at 5:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > Evan Cheng wrote: >> On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: >> >> >> That's a hack. :-) > > It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually > writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful > utility ;-) Except it's pretty slow at it. :-)

Hi Evan, Evan Cheng wrote: > > I don't think the duplication is going to be top much of a problem. If > it is, I'll bug you about refactoring. :) > > I don't mean to show how lazy I can be, but I also need to know the size of the exception table emitted in memory (JITDwarfEmitter.cpp). Reviewing it a little, I can not see how things won't be duplicated.

Evan Cheng wrote: > On Apr 1, 2008, at 12:50 AM, Nicolas Geoffray wrote: > > > That's a hack. :-) It is if you think that code emitter should only be used for actually writing somewhere the data. It is not if you find it another useful utility ;-) > Some targets already have ways to compute the exact > size of a function. See ARM::GetFunctionSize()

Hi I''m trying to use before_filter to allow access to a site. Only logged in users can view any object in the controller, but only users with a access_level higher than 2 can view specific objects. My code is: ----------------------------------------------------------- IN USER_CONTROLLER before_filter :login_required before_filter :access_granted, :only => [:destroy, :new , :edit]