maryammo wrote:
> Is this ready to merge?
Yes it is ready, thank you.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81631
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-
@@ -479,15 +479,37 @@ Error InstrProfSymtab::create(Module &M, bool InLTO) {
continue;
Types.clear();
G.getMetadata(LLVMContext::MD_type, Types);
-if (!Types.empty()) {
- MD5VTableMap.emplace_back(G.getGUID(), &G);
-}
+if (Types.empty())
+ co
https://github.com/yozhu created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81673
…ns (#80173)
Function annotation, as part of llvm.metadata, is for the function itself and
doesn't apply to its corresponding jump table entry, so with CFI we shouldn't
replace function pointer in function annotat
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-llvm-transforms
Author: None (yozhu)
Changes
…ns (#80173)
Function annotation, as part of llvm.metadata, is for the function itself and
doesn't apply to its corresponding jump table entry, so with CFI we shouldn't
replace function pointer in function
https://github.com/yozhu milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81673
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/llvmbot milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/llvmbot created
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
Backport fe3406e349884e4ef61480dd0607f1e237102c74
Requested by: @uweigand
>From 5830bee92a57e265a1826897ee1a337f109c9cab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ulrich Weigand
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:29:21 +0100
Subje
llvmbot wrote:
@MaskRay What do you think about merging this PR to the release branch?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listin
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-lld-elf
Author: None (llvmbot)
Changes
Backport fe3406e349884e4ef61480dd0607f1e237102c74
Requested by: @uweigand
---
Patch is 81.58 KiB, truncated to 20.00 KiB below, full version:
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675.diff
36 Files Affec
https://github.com/MaskRay approved this pull request.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
MaskRay wrote:
I feel that
macOS-13 only ?! failures are unrelated
```
Failed Tests (2):
lld :: ELF/build-id.s
lld :: ELF/partition-notes.s
```
The failures are unrelated to this SystemZ patch
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
___
aeubanks wrote:
+1 to everything jyknight has said. I would prefer `.lrodata` at the beginning
of the binary when `-pie` for one less segment, and at the end of the binary
when `-no-pie` so large data doesn't increase relocation pressure. This PR is
an improvement in that `-no-pie` relocation
tstellar wrote:
@MaskRay Do you have any clues as to why those tests might be failing only on
MacOS ? I think there may have been a configuration change on the builder that
caused it.
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81675
___
llvm-branch-c
https://github.com/yozhu edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81673
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
https://github.com/yozhu edited https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81673
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
MaskRay wrote:
> > I don't think this means that we unsupport -no-pie use cases
>
> Yes, we'd still support -no-pie, but we'd fail to support -no-pie
> -mcmodel=medium.
>
> > cost of layout purity
>
> I see that you feel strongly about this (e.g. by calling it "purity"), but I
> don't underst
MaskRay wrote:
> @MaskRay Do you have any clues as to why those tests might be failing only on
> MacOS ? I think there may have been a configuration change on the builder
> that caused it.
I have no clue... The two tests haven't been updated since 2023-09 and to the
best of my knowledge, no r
https://github.com/brad0 created https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81713
When in 32-bit mode, the backend doesn't currently implement 64-bit atomics,
even though the hardware is capable if you have specified a V9 CPU. Thus, limit
the width to 32-bit, for now, leaving behind a TODO.
Thi
https://github.com/brad0 milestoned
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81713
___
llvm-branch-commits mailing list
llvm-branch-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-branch-commits
llvmbot wrote:
@llvm/pr-subscribers-backend-sparc
Author: Brad Smith (brad0)
Changes
When in 32-bit mode, the backend doesn't currently implement 64-bit atomics,
even though the hardware is capable if you have specified a V9 CPU. Thus, limit
the width to 32-bit, for now, leaving behind a
https://github.com/lawben approved this pull request.
Sorry, was offline a few days while traveling. I'm reviewing this on my phone
right now, but it looks like it's just the bug fix, so LGTM :) thanks for
fixing and back porting
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/81454
___
101 - 121 of 121 matches
Mail list logo
