The following changes have been applied:
- Removed 'align 4'. We can simplify this away, as it does not provide useful
information in the example.
- Use named instructions instead of '%0'. This is nicer, but more importantly
this makes the IR valid. Before we had two assignments to %0 in a single
example.
- Add a missing branch instruction to make the loop structure clear.
- Move one access into outer.for.body to make it not look that empty.
- The statments that are only in the outer loop body should not reference the
inner loop metadata, but only the outer loop. Only statements in both loops
should reference both surrounding loops.
- Rename the array indexes to make them all independent. Before there were
identical array indexes in the inner and the outer loop. We want to
avoid this special case as it may lead to confusion.
llvm-svn: 202973
The correct name of the type in LLVM assembly is "x86_mmx". Also remove
the reST label "t_x86mmx" because it was unused anyway.
Patch by Manuel Jacob!
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2955
llvm-svn: 202929
directly care about the Value class (it is templated so that the key can
be any arbitrary Value subclass), it is in fact concretely tied to the
Value class through the ValueHandle's CallbackVH interface which relies
on the key type being some Value subclass to establish the value handle
chain.
Ironically, the unittest is already in the right library.
llvm-svn: 202824
We'd like to keep the clang-cl self-host working until we implement
MSVC-compatible RTTI.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2930
llvm-svn: 202758
It's easy to copy unintentionally when using 'auto', particularly inside
range-based for loops. Best practise is to use 'const&' unless there's
a good reason not to.
llvm-svn: 202729
The current coding standards restrict the use of struct to PODs, but no
one has been following them. This patch updates the standards to
clarify when structs are dangerous and describe common practice in LLVM.
llvm-svn: 202728
facilitate the nice formatting of lambdas passed there. Suggested by
Chris during review of my lambda additions, and something I strongly
agree with.
llvm-svn: 202622
about a few constructs in C++11 that are worth starting off in
a consistent manner within the codebase.
This will be matched with a change to clang-format's LLVM style which
will switch the options to support C++11 and use these conventions.
llvm-svn: 202620
The docs now build cleanly. Yay!
The following warnings were fixed:
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/HowToReleaseLLVM.rst:364: WARNING: Enumerated list ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/InAlloca.rst:: WARNING: document isn't included in any toctree
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:85: WARNING: Title underline too short.
Supported C++11 Language and Library Features
-------------------------------------------
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/CodingStandards.rst:85: WARNING: Title underline too short.
Supported C++11 Language and Library Features
-------------------------------------------
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/GettingStarted.rst:185: WARNING: Explicit markup ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/GettingStarted.rst:565: WARNING: Explicit markup ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
/home/sean/pg/llvm/llvm/docs/GettingStarted.rst:567: WARNING: Block quote ends without a blank line; unexpected unindent.
llvm-svn: 202603
The switch has been thrown. While I'm still watching for any failures or
problems with this, the documentation can go ahead and move forward.
llvm-svn: 202566
bots when using the standard library facilities. The missing pieces here
aren't always in useful discreet chunks.
Fortunately, the missing pieces are few and far between, and we can
emulate most of them in our headers as needed.
Based on feedback from Lang and Dave.
llvm-svn: 202548
A lot of this is writing down common knowledge and things often
communicated on mailing lists and in discussions. It could live in the
Programmer's Manual alternatively, but that felt slightly less
well-fitting.
It also includes (and was motivated by) the section on the relevant
language standards for LLVM and the specific features that will be
enabled with the switch to C++11.
With this, all of the documentation for the C++11 switch is, I think, in
place. I plan to flip the switch RSN. =]
llvm-svn: 202497
standards.
It claims the document intentionally doesn't give fixed standards for
brace placement or spacing, and then the document goes on to do
precisely that in several places. Instead, try to highlight that even
these rules are simply *guidance* which may be trumped by some other
circumstance or the local conventions of code.
I'm not trying to change the thrust of this part of the document, and if
folks think this does so, I'm happy to re-wordsmith it. I just don't
want it to be so self-contradicting.
llvm-svn: 202495
a more modern host C++ toolchain for Linux distros where folks sometimes
don't have a good option to get one as part of their system.
This is a first cut, so feedback, testing, and suggestions are very,
very welcom. This is one of the last real documentation changes that was
specifically requested prior to switching LLVM and Clang to build in
C++11 mode by default.
llvm-svn: 202486
seems unlikely to be added. It also doesn't seem like it should be part
of the build system at all (consider out-of-tree builds).
We should probably add nice, easy tool for this that works both for svn
client trees and git-svn client trees, but it probably won't be spelled
"make update".
llvm-svn: 202430
toolchain of LLVM. These are already being enforced by the build system
and have been discussed quite a few times on the lists, but
documentation is important. =]
Also, garbage collect the majority of the information about broken host
GCC toolchains. These aren't really relevant any more as they're all
older than the minimum requirement. I've left a few notes about
compilers one step older than the current requirement as these compilers
are at least conceivable to use, and it's better to preserve this kind
of hard-won institutional knowledge.
The next step will be some specific docs on how to set up a sufficiently
modern host toolchain if your system doesn't come with one. But that'll
be tomorrow. =]
llvm-svn: 202375
bits of software and to use a modern GCC version.
The Subversion bit was weird anyways -- it has nothing to do with
compiling LLVM. Also, there are many other ways to get at the trunk
source (git, git-svn, etc).
The TeXinfo thing... I have no idea about. But you can get a working
LLVM w/o it pretty easily. If man pages or something are missing, that
hardly seems like a problem. If folks really want this back, let me
know, but it seems mostly like a distraction.
I'd still like to separate this into:
- Required software to compile.
- Optional software to compile.
- Required software for certain *contributor* activities (like
regenerating configure scripts).
Also we need to mention that there are multiple options for build
systems, and the differences.
Also we should mention Windows.
Also probably other stuff I'm forgetting.
I'm wondering if this whole thing needs to be shot in the head and we
should just start a new, simpler getting started that doesn't have so
many years of accumulated stuff that is no longer relevant.
llvm-svn: 202373
getting started guide.
Some highlights:
- I heard there was this Clang compiler that you could use for your
host compiler. Not sure though.
- We no longer have a GCC frontend with weird build restrictions.
- Windows is doing a bit better than partially supported.
- We nuked everything to do with itanium.
- SPUs? Really?
- Xcode 2.5 and gcc 4.0.1 are really not a concern -- they don't work.
- OMG, we actually tried building LLVM on Alpha? Really?
- PowerPC works pretty well these days.
There is still a lot of stuff here I'm pretty dubious about, but I nuked
most of what was actively misleading, out of date, or patently wrong.
Some of it (mingw stuff especially) isn't really lacking, its just that
the comments here were actively wrong. Hopefully folks that know those
platforms can add back correct / modern information.
llvm-svn: 202370
The original text is very terse, so I've expanded on it.
Specifically, in the original text:
* "The selector value is a positive number if the exception matched a
type info" -- It wasn't clear that this meant "if the exception
matched a 'catch' clause".
* "If nothing is matched, the behavior of the program is
`undefined`_." -- It's actually implementation-defined in C++
rather than undefined, as the new text explains.
llvm-svn: 202209
This replaces the old NoIntegratedAssembler with at TargetOption. This is
more flexible and will be used to forward clang's -no-integrated-as option.
llvm-svn: 201836
Some references to llvm-gcc were so crusty that I wasn't sure how to
proceed and so I've left them intact.
I also slipped in a quick peephole fix to use a :doc: link instead of
raw HTML link.
llvm-svn: 201619
From a cursory look it seems like all the described commandline options
and such apply to clang just fine, but I'd appreciate a second opinion.
llvm-svn: 201616
Introducing llvm-profdata, a tool for merging profile data generated by
PGO instrumentation in clang.
- The name indicates a file extension of <name>.profdata. Eventually
profile data output by clang should be changed to that extension.
- llvm-profdata merges two profiles. However, the name is more general,
since it will likely pick up more tasks (such as summarizing a single
profile).
- llvm-profdata parses the current text-based format, but will be
updated once we settle on a binary format.
<rdar://problem/15949645>
llvm-svn: 201535
I noticed this convention from the commit logs. It seems like it
would be useful to document it, to encourage other committers to link
back to code reviews in their commits.
Differential Revision: http://llvm-reviews.chandlerc.com/D2678
llvm-svn: 201160
Fun fact: looking at the TableGen code (around TGParser.cpp:1166), the
only difference in handling is that adjacent regular string literals are
concatenated in the parser.
llvm-svn: 201035
They're called code fragments, but they are really multiline string
literals. Just spotted this usage in a patch by Aaron using "code
fragments" for holding documentation text. I remember someone bemoaning
the lack of multiline string literals in TableGen, so I'm explicitly
documenting that code fragments are multiline string literals.
Let it be known that any use case needing multiline string literals in
TableGen (such as descriptions of options, or whatnot) can use use
code fragments (instead of C-style string concatenation or exceedingly
long lines). E.g.
class Bar<int n>;
class Baz<int n>;
class Doc<string desc> {
string Desc = desc;
}
def Foo : Bar<1>, Baz<3>, Doc<[{
This Foo is a Bar, and also a Baz. It can take 3 values:
* Qux
* Quux
* Quuux
}]>;
llvm-svn: 201033
Tobias Grosser