deepak2427 marked an inline comment as done.
deepak2427 added a comment.
@Bjorn, Thanks for reviewing and accepting the patch.
Could you please advise on the next steps?
Would someone else commit this on my behalf or should I request for commit
access?
Thanks,
Deepak Panickal
https://reviews.
deepak2427 updated this revision to Diff 154244.
deepak2427 added a comment.
Updated with test from Bjorn Pettersson which is much more accurate and
clearer. Thanks!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
Index: test/CodeGen/pragma-
deepak2427 added a comment.
Yeah, you're right. Only one loop has to be checked in this case. I'll update
the test as per your suggestion. Thank you!
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lis
deepak2427 added a comment.
I have updated the test to not run the optimizer. The test I had added
previously for checking if the unroller is respecting the pragma is useful I
think. Not sure where that can be added though.
I guess it's independent of this patch anyway. If the patch and test is
deepak2427 updated this revision to Diff 154237.
deepak2427 added a comment.
Update the tests.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
Index: test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
===
deepak2427 added a comment.
I encountered the issue while working with the unroller and found that it was
not following the pragma info, and traced it back to the issue with metadata.
As far as I understood, for for-loops and while-loops, we add the metadata only
to the loop back-edge. So it wou
deepak2427 added a comment.
Added to Bugzilla,
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=38011
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo
deepak2427 added a comment.
Do I need to add specific reviewers?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
___
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
deepak2427 added a subscriber: shenhan.
deepak2427 added a comment.
I had based it on the other tests in clang/test/CodeGen.
Do we not need the `-o` to output to standard output?
Or did you mean something else?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
__
deepak2427 updated this revision to Diff 153393.
deepak2427 added a comment.
Add tests and the patch.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while-unroll.cpp
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
Index: test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
===
deepak2427 updated this revision to Diff 153392.
deepak2427 added a comment.
Herald added a subscriber: zzheng.
Add tests.
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while-unroll.cpp
test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
Index: test/CodeGen/pragma-do-while.cpp
==
deepak2427 added a comment.
> Phab is the correct way to submit patches.
> But having a bugreport in bugzilla is good too.
> But the test will be needed regardless of the patch submission method.
> And yes, please do always upload all patches with full context (`-U9`).
Sorry about the cont
deepak2427 updated this revision to Diff 153316.
deepak2427 added a comment.
Add full context
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
Index: lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
===
--- lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
+++ lib/Co
deepak2427 added a comment.
It's a patch for a bug in clang.
I have requested for a Bugzilla account, however thought of putting up the
patch in the meantime.
Do I need to mark it '[Private]'?
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
deepak2427 created this revision.
Herald added a subscriber: cfe-commits.
Repository:
rC Clang
https://reviews.llvm.org/D48721
Files:
lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
Index: lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
===
--- lib/CodeGen/CGStmt.cpp
+++ lib/
15 matches
Mail list logo