From 68cb31901c590cabceee6e6356d62c84142114cb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: mike-m Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 23:45:43 +0000 Subject: Overhauled llvm/clang docs builds. Closes PR6613. NOTE: 2nd part changeset for cfe trunk to follow. *** PRE-PATCH ISSUES ADDRESSED - clang api docs fail build from objdir - clang/llvm api docs collide in install PREFIX/ - clang/llvm main docs collide in install - clang/llvm main docs have full of hard coded destination assumptions and make use of absolute root in static html files; namely CommandGuide tools hard codes a website destination for cross references and some html cross references assume website root paths *** IMPROVEMENTS - bumped Doxygen from 1.4.x -> 1.6.3 - splits llvm/clang docs into 'main' and 'api' (doxygen) build trees - provide consistent, reliable doc builds for both main+api docs - support buid vs. install vs. website intentions - support objdir builds - document targets with 'make help' - correct clean and uninstall operations - use recursive dir delete only where absolutely necessary - added call function fn.RMRF which safeguards against botched 'rm -rf'; if any target (or any variable is evaluated) which attempts to remove any dirs which match a hard-coded 'safelist', a verbose error will be printed and make will error-stop. git-svn-id: https://llvm.org/svn/llvm-project/llvm/trunk@103213 91177308-0d34-0410-b5e6-96231b3b80d8 --- docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt | 55 ---------------------- 1 file changed, 55 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt (limited to 'docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt') diff --git a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt b/docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 004edb068d..0000000000 --- a/docs/HistoricalNotes/2002-05-12-InstListChange.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,55 +0,0 @@ -Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:12:53 -0500 (CDT) -From: Chris Lattner -To: "Vikram S. Adve" -Subject: LLVM change - -There is a fairly fundemental change that I would like to make to the LLVM -infrastructure, but I'd like to know if you see any drawbacks that I -don't... - -Basically right now at the basic block level, each basic block contains an -instruction list (returned by getInstList()) that is a ValueHolder of -instructions. To iterate over instructions, we must actually iterate over -the instlist, and access the instructions through the instlist. - -To add or remove an instruction from a basic block, we need to get an -iterator to an instruction, which, given just an Instruction*, requires a -linear search of the basic block the instruction is contained in... just -to insert an instruction before another instruction, or to delete an -instruction! This complicates algorithms that should be very simple (like -simple constant propogation), because they aren't actually sparse anymore, -they have to traverse basic blocks to remove constant propogated -instructions. - -Additionally, adding or removing instructions to a basic block -_invalidates all iterators_ pointing into that block, which is really -irritating. - -To fix these problems (and others), I would like to make the ordering of -the instructions be represented with a doubly linked list in the -instructions themselves, instead of an external data structure. This is -how many other representations do it, and frankly I can't remember why I -originally implemented it the way I did. - -Long term, all of the code that depends on the nasty features in the -instruction list (which can be found by grep'ing for getInstList()) will -be changed to do nice local transformations. In the short term, I'll -change the representation, but preserve the interface (including -getInstList()) so that all of the code doesn't have to change. - -Iteration over the instructions in a basic block remains the simple: -for (BasicBlock::iterator I = BB->begin(), E = BB->end(); I != E; ++I) ... - -But we will also support: -for (Instruction *I = BB->front(); I; I = I->getNext()) ... - -After converting instructions over, I'll convert basic blocks and -functions to have a similar interface. - -The only negative aspect of this change that I see is that it increases -the amount of memory consumed by one pointer per instruction. Given the -benefits, I think this is a very reasonable tradeoff. - -What do you think? - --Chris -- cgit v1.2.3