On 09/07/2017 10:12 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tristan Bourvon
wrote:
Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins:
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:09 AM, Nathan Froyd wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tristan Bourvon
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins:
> >> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC-Introduce-
> >> overfl
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Ben Kelly wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tristan Bourvon
> wrote:
>
>> Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins:
>> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC-Introduce-
>> overflow-builtins-td3838320.html
>> Along with the tracking issue: https://
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:44 AM, Tristan Bourvon
wrote:
> Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins:
> http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC-Introduce-
> overflow-builtins-td3838320.html
> Along with the tracking issue: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12290
> And the patch:
> https
On 08/20/2017 09:19 PM, Zachary Turner via dev-platform wrote:
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:47:02 PM UTC-7, Hans Wennborg wrote:
Yes, we want to do LTO+PGO builds eventually. (In particular, we'd
like to use ThinLTO for more manageable build times.) That requires
switching to using the lld li
On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 1:47:02 PM UTC-7, Hans Wennborg wrote:
> Yes, we want to do LTO+PGO builds eventually. (In particular, we'd
> like to use ThinLTO for more manageable build times.) That requires
> switching to using the lld linker, which in turn is requires adding
> support for writing
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017, at 04:36 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > * Performance: We switched from msvc+pgo to clang without pgo and got
> > comparable perf. We did have to use an order file (/order: flag to
> > link.exe) to get comparable startup perf.
> That is very interesting! This is one of the as
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 1:36 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Does Chromium plan to switch to use clang with PGO on Windows by any chance?
Yes, we want to do LTO+PGO builds eventually. (In particular, we'd
like to use ThinLTO for more manageable build times.) That requires
switching to using the lld li
On 08/14/2017 01:12 PM, tha...@chromium.org wrote:
Hi,
we (Chromium) are also happy to answer questions if there's interest. We've
looked at most of these issues in some detail.
Thanks Nico, much appreciated!
(For the record, we have already gotten a lot of help from the Google
compiler folk
Hi,
we (Chromium) are also happy to answer questions if there's interest. We've
looked at most of these issues in some detail.
In bullet points:
* Correctness: You might have some UB here and there but I wouldn't expect this
to be a big problem.
* Performance: We switched from msvc+pgo to clang
Here's the RFC of the overflow builtins:
http://clang-developers.42468.n3.nabble.com/RFC-Introduce-overflow-builtins-td3838320.html
Along with the tracking issue: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12290
And the patch:
https://github.com/llvm-mirror/clang/commit/98d1ec1e99625176626b0bcd44cef7df6
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 6:11 AM, Till Schneidereit <
t...@tillschneidereit.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Julian Seward wrote:
>
> > On 13/08/17 03:40, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > > As you may have heard by now, Chromium has started to switch their
> > Windows
> > > builds to use cla
On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Julian Seward wrote:
> On 13/08/17 03:40, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> > As you may have heard by now, Chromium has started to switch their
> Windows
> > builds to use clang-cl instead of MSVC [1]. This has improved their
> > Speedometer v2 benchmark score on x86 (but
On 13/08/17 03:40, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> As you may have heard by now, Chromium has started to switch their Windows
> builds to use clang-cl instead of MSVC [1]. This has improved their
> Speedometer v2 benchmark score on x86 (but not on x86-64) by about 30%
> according to AWFY [2]. [..]
Do we
On 8/13/2017 8:32 AM, cosinusoida...@gmail.com wrote:
Haven't you been able to do that with MinGW on Linux since about 1998?
MinGW doesn't follow the MSVC ABI, as I recall, which makes any MS
interface that uses C++ unusable. I believe this causes issues in places
like accessibility or graphi
On Sunday, 13 August 2017 06:20:31 UTC+1, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:22:30PM -0400, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> > wrote:
> > > Last but not least, you may ask yourself why would we want to spend this
> > > much effort to switch
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 11:22:30PM -0400, Jeff Muizelaar wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Ehsan Akhgari
> wrote:
> > Last but not least, you may ask yourself why would we want to spend this
> > much effort to switch to clang-cl on Windows? I believe this is an
> > important long term sh
On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 9:40 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote:
> Last but not least, you may ask yourself why would we want to spend this
> much effort to switch to clang-cl on Windows? I believe this is an
> important long term shift that is beneficial for us. First and foremost,
> clang is a vibrant op
18 matches
Mail list logo
