User Details
- User Since
- Dec 25 2018, 11:14 PM (221 w, 4 d)
Thu, Mar 23
Wed, Mar 22
Mon, Mar 13
Thu, Mar 9
Tue, Mar 7
Sat, Feb 25
Feb 21 2023
I took a quick look, Seems we can't reproduce the report for test in https://bugs.chromium.org/p/llvm/issues/detail?id=30 in latest llvm.
Feb 15 2023
Feb 9 2023
Jan 12 2023
Jan 11 2023
! In D139254#4036649, @smeenai wrote:
I'm going on an extended leave soon, and I won't have time to implement it before then. I've asked some coworkers to take a look, but if you have the time to add the option it'd be hugely appreciated :)
Jan 9 2023
Jan 8 2023
Hi @smeenai , do you have plan to implement it ? If not, I will do it, but may some days later (due to some other jobs in my hands).
Jan 5 2023
Jan 2 2023
Dec 11 2022
Dec 9 2022
Dec 8 2022
Add test stack-protector-recursively.ll to check stack protector auto generated function (__stack_chk_fail).
Dec 7 2022
ping, thanks
Dec 6 2022
Dec 4 2022
Dec 3 2022
Update to https://reviews.llvm.org/D139254
Fix Dominate Tree problems
Dec 2 2022
Seems not the patch problem, I find the stack protector is strange, it can't be independently print by -print-after-all, and just show in "Module Verifier".
Let me me take a deep look.
thanks very much!
Nov 30 2022
Done. @lebedev.ri, clear now, thanks again for explain.
Nov 29 2022
I check the following pull request https://reviews.llvm.org/D138778
it has same
Failed Tests (1):
LLVM :: Examples/OrcV2Examples/lljit-with-thinlto-summaries.test
Nov 28 2022
I reproduce according to https://buildkite.com/llvm-project/premerge-checks/builds/123514#0184bd1c-b61e-4f3f-b814-f4698f5d7b1b guide
Nov 27 2022
Nov 23 2022
LGTM, thanks
LGTM, thanks for your contribution!
Auto gen is unneccesary.
Try use CHECK-NOT: "assert message" ?
Nov 22 2022
Yes, We use XFAIL to mark a test as an expected failure. An XFAIL test will be successful if its execution fails, and will be a failure if its execution succeeds.
But now we are not expected failure. it is strange to test a test case by check nothing (only expect it not go to assert). I am not much sure about it.
@dsanders any suggestions ?
Nov 21 2022
Let me accept it first, pls wait a little days to see if other reviewers has different opinions
LGTM (Seems we never directly run debugify twice before)
Nov 17 2022
could you add a small test case here ?
Nov 15 2022
Make sense! LGTM
How about merge the " load + cast" to the cast position not load.
for example generate the tileload for line 95 105 to line 105:
Nov 14 2022
static __inline__ void __tile_dpbsud(__tile1024i *dst, __tile1024i src0, __tile1024i src1) { short m = src0.row; short n = src1.col; short k = src0.col; func_use(m, n, k, ...); // set it as a scheduler boundary and emit nothing for this special variable parameter func. ? dst->tile = _tile_dpbsud_internal(m, n, k, dst->tile, src0.tile, src1.tile); }
Nov 13 2022
Maybe it is time to re-review the previous way for implement "let share define before use".
e.g if let frond end do same "make sure" is more beautiful.
Oct 21 2022
Hi @RKSimon , I sync with Freddy who also use this tool, we decide to merge the disassembler tests. thanks : )
merge disassembler tests
yes, so the *.s must be split with intel and att.
So let make same way for disassemble.
Let me first move them into AMX directory.