Craig Topper
2013-Jul-19 05:47 UTC
[LLVMdev] SIMD instructions and memory alignment on X86
Hmm, maybe sse isn't being enabled so its falling back to emulating sqrt? On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote:> In the disassembly, I'm seeing three cases of > call 76719BA1 > > I am assuming this is the sqrt function as this is the only function > called in the LLVM IR. > > The code at 76719BA1 is: > > 76719BA1 push ebp > 76719BA2 mov ebp,esp > 76719BA4 sub esp,20h > 76719BA7 and esp,0FFFFFFF0h > 76719BAA fld st(0) > 76719BAC fst dword ptr [esp+18h] > 76719BB0 fistp qword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BB4 fild qword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BB8 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+18h] > 76719BBC mov eax,dword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BC0 test eax,eax > 76719BC2 je 76719DCF > 76719BC8 fsubp st(1),st > 76719BCA test edx,edx > 76719BCC js 7671F9DB > 76719BD2 fstp dword ptr [esp] > 76719BD5 mov ecx,dword ptr [esp] > 76719BD8 add ecx,7FFFFFFFh > 76719BDE sbb eax,0 > 76719BE1 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+14h] > 76719BE5 sbb edx,0 > 76719BE8 leave > 76719BE9 ret > > > As you can see at 76719BD5, it modifies ECX . > > I don't know that this is the sqrtpd function (for example, I'm not seeing > any SSE instructions here?) but whatever it is, it's being called from the > IR I attached earlier, and is modifying ECX under some circumstances. > > > On 19/07/2013 3:29 PM, Craig Topper wrote: > > That should map directly to sqrtpd which can't modify ecx. > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > >> Sorry, that should have been llvm.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd >> >> >> On 19/07/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >> >> What is "frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd". I'm only familiar with things prefixed >> with "llvm.x86". >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: >> >>> After stepping through the produced assembly, I believe I have a >>> culprit. >>> >>> One of the calls to @frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd is modifying the value of ECX >>> - while the produced code is expecting it to still contain its previous >>> value. >>> >>> Peter N >>> >>> >>> On 19/07/2013 2:09 PM, Peter Newman wrote: >>> >>> I've attached the module->dump() that our code is producing. >>> Unfortunately this is the smallest test case I have available. >>> >>> This is before any optimization passes are applied. There are two >>> separate modules in existence at the time, and there are no guarantees >>> about the order the surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be >>> some interaction between them? There shouldn't be, they don't refer to any >>> common memory etc. There is no multi-threading occurring. >>> >>> The function in module-dump.ll (called crashfunc in this file) is called >>> with >>> - func_params 0x0018f3b0 double [3] >>> [0x0] -11.339976634695301 double >>> [0x1] -9.7504239056205506 double >>> [0x2] -5.2900856817382804 double >>> at the time of the exception. >>> >>> This is compiled on a "i686-pc-win32" triple. All of the non-intrinsic >>> functions referred to in these modules are the standard equivalents from >>> the MSVC library (e.g. @asin is the standard C lib double asin( double ) >>> ). >>> >>> Hopefully this is reproducible for you. >>> >>> -- >>> PeterN >>> >>> On 18/07/2013 4:37 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >>> >>> Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce this issue? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I applied >>>> the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. >>>> >>>> Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other SIMD >>>> instructions. The common factor is in each case, ECX is set to 0x7fffffff, >>>> and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . >>>> >>>> Additionally, turning the optimization level passed to createJIT down >>>> appears to avoid it, so I'm now leaning towards a bug in one of the >>>> optimization passes. >>>> >>>> I'm going to dig through the passes controlled by that parameter and >>>> see if I can narrow down which optimization is causing it. >>>> >>>> Peter N >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/07/2013 1:58 PM, Solomon Boulos wrote: >>>> >>>>> As someone off list just told me, perhaps my new bug is the same issue: >>>>> >>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16640 >>>>> >>>>> Do you happen to be using FastISel? >>>>> >>>>> Solomon >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm currently in the process of debugging a crash occurring in our >>>>>> program. In LLVM 3.2 and 3.3 it appears that JIT generated code is >>>>>> attempting to perform access unaligned memory with a SSE2 instruction. >>>>>> However this only happens under certain conditions that seem (but may not >>>>>> be) related to the stacks state on calling the function. >>>>>> >>>>>> Our program acts as a front-end, using the LLVM C++ API to generate a >>>>>> JIT generated function. This function is primarily mathematical, so we use >>>>>> the Vector types to take advantage of SIMD instructions (as well as a few >>>>>> SSE2 intrinsics). >>>>>> >>>>>> This worked in LLVM 2.8 but started failing in 3.2 and has continued >>>>>> to fail in 3.3. It fails with no optimizations applied to the LLVM >>>>>> Function/Module. It crashes with what is reported as a memory access error >>>>>> (accessing 0xffffffff), however it's suggested that this is how the SSE >>>>>> fault raising mechanism appears. >>>>>> >>>>>> The generated instruction varies, but it seems to often be similar to >>>>>> (I don't have it in front of me, sorry): >>>>>> movapd xmm0, xmm[ecx+0x???????] >>>>>> Where the xmm register changes, and the second parameter is a memory >>>>>> access. >>>>>> ECX is always set to 0x7ffffff - however I don't know if this is part >>>>>> of the SSE error reporting process or is part of the situation causing the >>>>>> error. >>>>>> >>>>>> I haven't worked out exactly what code path etc is causing this >>>>>> crash. I'm hoping that someone can tell me if there were any changed >>>>>> requirements for working with SIMD in LLVM 3.2 (or earlier, we haven't >>>>>> tried 3.0 or 3.1). I currently suspect the use of GlobalVariable (we first >>>>>> discovered the crash when using a feature that uses them), however I have >>>>>> attempted using setAlignment on the GlobalVariables without any change. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Peter N >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~Craig >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ~Craig >> >> >> > > > -- > ~Craig > > >-- ~Craig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130718/ff8dda6c/attachment.html>
Peter Newman
2013-Jul-19 05:53 UTC
[LLVMdev] SIMD instructions and memory alignment on X86
Is there something specifically required to enable SSE? If it's not detected as available (based from the target triple?) then I don't think we enable it specifically. Also it seems that it should handle converting to/from the vector types, although I can see it getting confused about needing to do that if it thinks SSE isn't available at all. On 19/07/2013 3:47 PM, Craig Topper wrote:> Hmm, maybe sse isn't being enabled so its falling back to emulating sqrt? > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com > <mailto:peter at uformia.com>> wrote: > > In the disassembly, I'm seeing three cases of > call 76719BA1 > > I am assuming this is the sqrt function as this is the only > function called in the LLVM IR. > > The code at 76719BA1 is: > > 76719BA1 push ebp > 76719BA2 mov ebp,esp > 76719BA4 sub esp,20h > 76719BA7 and esp,0FFFFFFF0h > 76719BAA fld st(0) > 76719BAC fst dword ptr [esp+18h] > 76719BB0 fistp qword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BB4 fild qword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BB8 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+18h] > 76719BBC mov eax,dword ptr [esp+10h] > 76719BC0 test eax,eax > 76719BC2 je 76719DCF > 76719BC8 fsubp st(1),st > 76719BCA test edx,edx > 76719BCC js 7671F9DB > 76719BD2 fstp dword ptr [esp] > 76719BD5 mov ecx,dword ptr [esp] > 76719BD8 add ecx,7FFFFFFFh > 76719BDE sbb eax,0 > 76719BE1 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+14h] > 76719BE5 sbb edx,0 > 76719BE8 leave > 76719BE9 ret > > > As you can see at 76719BD5, it modifies ECX . > > I don't know that this is the sqrtpd function (for example, I'm > not seeing any SSE instructions here?) but whatever it is, it's > being called from the IR I attached earlier, and is modifying ECX > under some circumstances. > > > On 19/07/2013 3:29 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >> That should map directly to sqrtpd which can't modify ecx. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com >> <mailto:peter at uformia.com>> wrote: >> >> Sorry, that should have been llvm.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd >> >> >> On 19/07/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >>> What is "frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd". I'm only familiar with >>> things prefixed with "llvm.x86". >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Peter Newman >>> <peter at uformia.com <mailto:peter at uformia.com>> wrote: >>> >>> After stepping through the produced assembly, I believe >>> I have a culprit. >>> >>> One of the calls to @frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd is modifying >>> the value of ECX - while the produced code is expecting >>> it to still contain its previous value. >>> >>> Peter N >>> >>> >>> On 19/07/2013 2:09 PM, Peter Newman wrote: >>>> I've attached the module->dump() that our code is >>>> producing. Unfortunately this is the smallest test case >>>> I have available. >>>> >>>> This is before any optimization passes are applied. >>>> There are two separate modules in existence at the >>>> time, and there are no guarantees about the order the >>>> surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be >>>> some interaction between them? There shouldn't be, they >>>> don't refer to any common memory etc. There is no >>>> multi-threading occurring. >>>> >>>> The function in module-dump.ll (called crashfunc in >>>> this file) is called with >>>> - func_params 0x0018f3b0 double [3] >>>> [0x0] -11.339976634695301 double >>>> [0x1] -9.7504239056205506 double >>>> [0x2] -5.2900856817382804 double >>>> at the time of the exception. >>>> >>>> This is compiled on a "i686-pc-win32" triple. All of >>>> the non-intrinsic functions referred to in these >>>> modules are the standard equivalents from the MSVC >>>> library (e.g. @asin is the standard C lib double >>>> asin( double ) ). >>>> >>>> Hopefully this is reproducible for you. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PeterN >>>> >>>> On 18/07/2013 4:37 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >>>>> Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce >>>>> this issue? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman >>>>> <peter at uformia.com <mailto:peter at uformia.com>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug >>>>> I'm hitting. I applied the fix to my source and it >>>>> didn't make a difference. >>>>> >>>>> Also further testing found me getting the same >>>>> behavior with other SIMD instructions. The common >>>>> factor is in each case, ECX is set to 0x7fffffff, >>>>> and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, turning the optimization level >>>>> passed to createJIT down appears to avoid it, so >>>>> I'm now leaning towards a bug in one of the >>>>> optimization passes. >>>>> >>>>> I'm going to dig through the passes controlled by >>>>> that parameter and see if I can narrow down which >>>>> optimization is causing it. >>>>> >>>>> Peter N >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/07/2013 1:58 PM, Solomon Boulos wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As someone off list just told me, perhaps my >>>>> new bug is the same issue: >>>>> >>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16640 >>>>> >>>>> Do you happen to be using FastISel? >>>>> >>>>> Solomon >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Peter Newman >>>>> <peter at uformia.com <mailto:peter at uformia.com>> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I'm currently in the process of debugging >>>>> a crash occurring in our program. In LLVM >>>>> 3.2 and 3.3 it appears that JIT generated >>>>> code is attempting to perform access >>>>> unaligned memory with a SSE2 instruction. >>>>> However this only happens under certain >>>>> conditions that seem (but may not be) >>>>> related to the stacks state on calling the >>>>> function. >>>>> >>>>> Our program acts as a front-end, using the >>>>> LLVM C++ API to generate a JIT generated >>>>> function. This function is primarily >>>>> mathematical, so we use the Vector types >>>>> to take advantage of SIMD instructions (as >>>>> well as a few SSE2 intrinsics). >>>>> >>>>> This worked in LLVM 2.8 but started >>>>> failing in 3.2 and has continued to fail >>>>> in 3.3. It fails with no optimizations >>>>> applied to the LLVM Function/Module. It >>>>> crashes with what is reported as a memory >>>>> access error (accessing 0xffffffff), >>>>> however it's suggested that this is how >>>>> the SSE fault raising mechanism appears. >>>>> >>>>> The generated instruction varies, but it >>>>> seems to often be similar to (I don't have >>>>> it in front of me, sorry): >>>>> movapd xmm0, xmm[ecx+0x???????] >>>>> Where the xmm register changes, and the >>>>> second parameter is a memory access. >>>>> ECX is always set to 0x7ffffff - however I >>>>> don't know if this is part of the SSE >>>>> error reporting process or is part of the >>>>> situation causing the error. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't worked out exactly what code >>>>> path etc is causing this crash. I'm hoping >>>>> that someone can tell me if there were any >>>>> changed requirements for working with SIMD >>>>> in LLVM 3.2 (or earlier, we haven't tried >>>>> 3.0 or 3.1). I currently suspect the use >>>>> of GlobalVariable (we first discovered the >>>>> crash when using a feature that uses >>>>> them), however I have attempted using >>>>> setAlignment on the GlobalVariables >>>>> without any change. >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Peter N >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu >>>>> <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >>>>> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu <mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu> >>>>> http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ~Craig >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~Craig >> >> >> >> >> -- >> ~Craig > > > > > -- > ~Craig-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130719/f809d63d/attachment.html>
Craig Topper
2013-Jul-19 06:00 UTC
[LLVMdev] SIMD instructions and memory alignment on X86
Hmm, I'm not able to get those .ll files to compile if I disable SSE and I end up with SSE instructions(including sqrtpd) if I don't disable it. On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote:> Is there something specifically required to enable SSE? If it's not > detected as available (based from the target triple?) then I don't think we > enable it specifically. > > Also it seems that it should handle converting to/from the vector types, > although I can see it getting confused about needing to do that if it > thinks SSE isn't available at all. > > > On 19/07/2013 3:47 PM, Craig Topper wrote: > > Hmm, maybe sse isn't being enabled so its falling back to emulating sqrt? > > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:45 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: > >> In the disassembly, I'm seeing three cases of >> call 76719BA1 >> >> I am assuming this is the sqrt function as this is the only function >> called in the LLVM IR. >> >> The code at 76719BA1 is: >> >> 76719BA1 push ebp >> 76719BA2 mov ebp,esp >> 76719BA4 sub esp,20h >> 76719BA7 and esp,0FFFFFFF0h >> 76719BAA fld st(0) >> 76719BAC fst dword ptr [esp+18h] >> 76719BB0 fistp qword ptr [esp+10h] >> 76719BB4 fild qword ptr [esp+10h] >> 76719BB8 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+18h] >> 76719BBC mov eax,dword ptr [esp+10h] >> 76719BC0 test eax,eax >> 76719BC2 je 76719DCF >> 76719BC8 fsubp st(1),st >> 76719BCA test edx,edx >> 76719BCC js 7671F9DB >> 76719BD2 fstp dword ptr [esp] >> 76719BD5 mov ecx,dword ptr [esp] >> 76719BD8 add ecx,7FFFFFFFh >> 76719BDE sbb eax,0 >> 76719BE1 mov edx,dword ptr [esp+14h] >> 76719BE5 sbb edx,0 >> 76719BE8 leave >> 76719BE9 ret >> >> >> As you can see at 76719BD5, it modifies ECX . >> >> I don't know that this is the sqrtpd function (for example, I'm not >> seeing any SSE instructions here?) but whatever it is, it's being called >> from the IR I attached earlier, and is modifying ECX under some >> circumstances. >> >> >> On 19/07/2013 3:29 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >> >> That should map directly to sqrtpd which can't modify ecx. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:27 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, that should have been llvm.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd >>> >>> >>> On 19/07/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >>> >>> What is "frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd". I'm only familiar with things prefixed >>> with "llvm.x86". >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com>wrote: >>> >>>> After stepping through the produced assembly, I believe I have a >>>> culprit. >>>> >>>> One of the calls to @frep.x86.sse2.sqrt.pd is modifying the value of >>>> ECX - while the produced code is expecting it to still contain its previous >>>> value. >>>> >>>> Peter N >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/07/2013 2:09 PM, Peter Newman wrote: >>>> >>>> I've attached the module->dump() that our code is producing. >>>> Unfortunately this is the smallest test case I have available. >>>> >>>> This is before any optimization passes are applied. There are two >>>> separate modules in existence at the time, and there are no guarantees >>>> about the order the surrounding code calls those functions, so there may be >>>> some interaction between them? There shouldn't be, they don't refer to any >>>> common memory etc. There is no multi-threading occurring. >>>> >>>> The function in module-dump.ll (called crashfunc in this file) is >>>> called with >>>> - func_params 0x0018f3b0 double [3] >>>> [0x0] -11.339976634695301 double >>>> [0x1] -9.7504239056205506 double >>>> [0x2] -5.2900856817382804 double >>>> at the time of the exception. >>>> >>>> This is compiled on a "i686-pc-win32" triple. All of the non-intrinsic >>>> functions referred to in these modules are the standard equivalents from >>>> the MSVC library (e.g. @asin is the standard C lib double asin( double ) >>>> ). >>>> >>>> Hopefully this is reproducible for you. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> PeterN >>>> >>>> On 18/07/2013 4:37 PM, Craig Topper wrote: >>>> >>>> Are you able to send any IR for others to reproduce this issue? >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:23 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com>wrote: >>>> >>>>> Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the bug I'm hitting. I >>>>> applied the fix to my source and it didn't make a difference. >>>>> >>>>> Also further testing found me getting the same behavior with other >>>>> SIMD instructions. The common factor is in each case, ECX is set to >>>>> 0x7fffffff, and it's an operation using xmm ptr ecx+offset . >>>>> >>>>> Additionally, turning the optimization level passed to createJIT down >>>>> appears to avoid it, so I'm now leaning towards a bug in one of the >>>>> optimization passes. >>>>> >>>>> I'm going to dig through the passes controlled by that parameter and >>>>> see if I can narrow down which optimization is causing it. >>>>> >>>>> Peter N >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/07/2013 1:58 PM, Solomon Boulos wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> As someone off list just told me, perhaps my new bug is the same >>>>>> issue: >>>>>> >>>>>> http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=16640 >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you happen to be using FastISel? >>>>>> >>>>>> Solomon >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 16, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Peter Newman <peter at uformia.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm currently in the process of debugging a crash occurring in our >>>>>>> program. In LLVM 3.2 and 3.3 it appears that JIT generated code is >>>>>>> attempting to perform access unaligned memory with a SSE2 instruction. >>>>>>> However this only happens under certain conditions that seem (but may not >>>>>>> be) related to the stacks state on calling the function. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Our program acts as a front-end, using the LLVM C++ API to generate >>>>>>> a JIT generated function. This function is primarily mathematical, so we >>>>>>> use the Vector types to take advantage of SIMD instructions (as well as a >>>>>>> few SSE2 intrinsics). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This worked in LLVM 2.8 but started failing in 3.2 and has continued >>>>>>> to fail in 3.3. It fails with no optimizations applied to the LLVM >>>>>>> Function/Module. It crashes with what is reported as a memory access error >>>>>>> (accessing 0xffffffff), however it's suggested that this is how the SSE >>>>>>> fault raising mechanism appears. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The generated instruction varies, but it seems to often be similar >>>>>>> to (I don't have it in front of me, sorry): >>>>>>> movapd xmm0, xmm[ecx+0x???????] >>>>>>> Where the xmm register changes, and the second parameter is a memory >>>>>>> access. >>>>>>> ECX is always set to 0x7ffffff - however I don't know if this is >>>>>>> part of the SSE error reporting process or is part of the situation causing >>>>>>> the error. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I haven't worked out exactly what code path etc is causing this >>>>>>> crash. I'm hoping that someone can tell me if there were any changed >>>>>>> requirements for working with SIMD in LLVM 3.2 (or earlier, we haven't >>>>>>> tried 3.0 or 3.1). I currently suspect the use of GlobalVariable (we first >>>>>>> discovered the crash when using a feature that uses them), however I have >>>>>>> attempted using setAlignment on the GlobalVariables without any change. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Peter N >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list >>>>> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu >>>>> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> ~Craig >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> ~Craig >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> ~Craig >> >> >> > > > -- > ~Craig > > >-- ~Craig -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130718/f10017cb/attachment.html>
Maybe Matching Threads
- [LLVMdev] SIMD instructions and memory alignment on X86
- [LLVMdev] SIMD instructions and memory alignment on X86
- [LLVMdev] fptoui calling a function that modifies ECX
- [LLVMdev] fptoui calling a function that modifies ECX
- [LLVMdev] fptoui calling a function that modifies ECX